Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5845

 1                           Monday, 1 February 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case IT-08-91-T, the

 7     Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Morning to all.

 9             May we have the appearances, please.

10             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner,

11     Belinda Pidwell, and case manager Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

13     Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Tatjana Savic appearing for

14     Stanisic Defence this morning.

15             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning Your Honour.  On behalf

16     Zupljanin Defence, Dragan Krgovic and Katarina Danicic.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, just before the witness comes in, can

19     we inquire, because we're now reorganising the witnesses, whether we will

20     be sitting the week after Easter.  We heard - I suppose you have to call

21     it a rumour - that we were not.  But we assume that because the week is

22     coming off now, we will sitting after Easter.  Is that right?

23             JUDGE HALL:  No.  No, we will not be sitting the week after

24     Easter.

25             MS. KORNER:  Right.

Page 5846

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Could the usher please escort the witness back to

 3     the stand.

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning to you, Dr. Zepinic.  I remind that you

 6     you're still on your oath.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Your Honour.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honours, good morning.  We changed the order.

 9     I will start first with cross-examination.

10             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

11                           WITNESS:  VITOMIR ZEPINIC [Resumed]

12                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

13                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:

14        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Zepinic.

15        A.   Good morning.

16        Q.   We were introduced a few days ago in the OTP's office, and we had

17     a chance to speak for about five or ten minutes, but let me introduce

18     myself for the transcript.  Officially my name is Dragan Krgovic, I'm a

19     member of the Defence team of Stojan Zupljanin, and I will be asking you

20     some questions about your statement.

21             I will be showing you some documents during the

22     cross-examination, documents that we haven't had the chance seeing.  I

23     don't believe that you have seen them recently.  So I have compiled a set

24     of documents, some of which are there Serbian only.  And on the screen,

25     documents are exhibited page by page, but to facilitate communication

Page 5847

 1     when I say to you, document so-and-so, you will be able to see it on

 2     paper.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the usher to

 4     pass this to the witness.

 5             MS. KORNER:  Do I understand there are some documents without a

 6     translation.

 7             MR. KRGOVIC:  Yes.  They're on e-court.

 8             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, we weren't notified that this was

 9     happening.  And it really doesn't help, because all we get is, then, such

10     part as is shown on the screen in e-court, which may be only part of the

11     document, and we don't know what the context is.  I do think if this is

12     the situation, we ought to be told about this in advance.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Could counsel enlighten me as to why this seems to

14     be a recurring problem.

15             MR. KRGOVIC:  Yes, Your Honour, because we -- four days ago we

16     sent the list and indicated some of these documents still pending or

17     translation.  The main problem is the summary of this witness, because we

18     received a summary with two paragraph doesn't mention my client at all.

19             JUDGE HALL:  I hear you, but I'm not sure that that answers the

20     concern raised by Ms. Korner.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I will continue in B/C/S.

22             When we received the summary and when we started preparing for

23     this witness and nothing was pointing to any connection between him and

24     my client.  It wasn't mentioned in the summary or in the proofing notes

25     what this witness would be testifying about.

Page 5848

 1             As a result, the Defence, only after the examination-in-chief and

 2     the mention of some documents, indicated that this evidence would also

 3     deal with the role of my client.  So that all documents that we sent off

 4     for translation were not all translated.  Some are either on the 65 ter

 5     list or were submitted in the latest disclosures in the past month or so.

 6             So we didn't have time to translate them all.  But what we were

 7     able to do, we have done.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Is there a practical solution that you propose to

 9     the immediate problem?

10             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.  I will show the

11     document -- show the witness the documents, and have him read out the

12     letterhead, and then I will only deal with some paragraphs from the

13     documents.  These are mostly documents that were sent to this witness by

14     Mr. Zupljanin, and they relate to the events in which this witness was

15     also involved.

16             The witness is familiar with the documents, and the events that I

17     will be mentioning are events in which he took part.

18                           [Defence counsel confer]

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And the reason why we agreed for me

20     to start with the cross-examination is for the OTP to have some time to

21     verify the context of these documents.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, is there a response.

23             MS. KORNER:  Not really, Your Honour.  I don't quite follow that.

24             Our list of documents that was going to be shown to Mr. Zepinic,

25     Dr. Zepinic, was sent to the Defence, whatever it was, the day before he

Page 5849

 1     started testifying.  They notified us of the documents they were going to

 2     be using as he started testifying, so it cannot be right to say that

 3     because of -- it's only because of his examination-in-chief that they

 4     have decided to use these documents.

 5             My only concern is - I don't want to stop them - is that unless

 6     we have these documents in -- in translation, as I said, we can't see the

 7     context.

 8             Presumably on the list they've indicated which of the ones they

 9     haven't got a translation for, and have they sent -- well, I see

10     Mr. Smith says not.  And equally I would like the whole document.

11             You see, Your Honours, the e-mail we got says we are still

12     awaiting for translation for most of these documents.

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, all these documents

14     have been in e-court for at least five days.  It was indicated that they

15     would be used in this case, and once we received the OTP's list of

16     documents and when the examination-in-chief in started, we submitted this

17     list.

18             It wasn't my intention to cross-examine this witness at all.  If

19     the Prosecutor and the examination-in-chief through the documents and

20     through the questions put to this witness hadn't dealt with some issues,

21     I wouldn't be examining Mr. Zepinic at all.

22             But, due to this decision by the OTP and due to the lack of

23     information in the proofing notes and the summary, we have put in this

24     situation.  So this wasn't expected.  So I only want to go through some

25     documents briefly with the witness.  I will read out the -- the headings

Page 5850

 1     and have him look at the signatures and the like.  And, actually, these

 2     are documents that we received from the OTP.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, among our concerns is that

 6     notwithstanding your representation that the Prosecution would have time

 7     to look at these documents, how long in fact are they?  And this is all

 8     in the context of the commitment, undertaking, whatever the proper word

 9     is, that this witness is to be released today.

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness has a good

12     memory, so these documents are just a prop for me to remind him of some

13     events and details thereof.  The documents are a few pages long, but I

14     don't want to go through all of them, just the heading or the signature

15     or possibly a paragraph or two from each in order to ask the witness

16     whether he remembers the events or the information related to them.

17     That's all.

18             JUDGE HALL:  This is the third time you have indicated that.  But

19     the practical problem, as Ms. Korner has highlighted, is that once they

20     would have seen the full document, there may be a context which they

21     would wish properly to be able to address.  And given the time

22     constraints that we are under today, is -- would the Prosecution be in a

23     position to deal with any possible concerns that they may have, once they

24     would have had the advantage of seeing the entire document to which,

25     admittedly, you say you're only putting the signature and the caption to

Page 5851

 1     the witness.

 2             That's the practical problem.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can proceed

 4     differently.  I can ask the witness about some events, whether he knows

 5     about them, and then, without using the documents, go on in a different

 6     manner.

 7             It was only my intention to help the witness remember some

 8     things, but 90 per cent of the documents were sent to the witness anyway

 9     originally.  And these are the documents that were disclosed to us by the

10     OTP, and they are certainly in their possession.  These are not our

11     documents.  They are all documents received from the OTP.  They bear the

12     signature of my client, and the witness was a participant to those

13     events.  I believe it is all a simple matter.  We shouldn't waste more

14     time on such procedural issues.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Which is exactly the point that I was going to make.

16     I suggest that we begin, and see where we get.  And we proceed document

17     by document.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, I apologise for this --

20        A.   Thank you for saying that I had a good memory.

21        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, you are the right person to clarify some things

22     concerning the Special Police and some other police units.

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see on e-court document

24     2D02-0848.  I apologise.  The last four figures are 0878.

25        Q.   You can find it under tab 1, sir, the very first document.

Page 5852

 1             When you spoke about the Special Police and other police

 2     detachments, you said that in some CSBs of some municipalities there were

 3     such units, units that were called special units, but probably you meant

 4     manoeuvre units that could be found in any CSB and the members of which

 5     were also in SJBs.

 6        A.   Yes.  We called them manoeuvre units or special units, and every

 7     CSB established them from the personnel of the police stations under the

 8     CSBs.

 9             They were manned mostly by younger and well-trained police

10     officers, and in the police stations, they were members of the manoeuvre

11     or special units.  And our MUP special unit was also a manoeuvre unit.

12     So whichever way you choose to call them, the manoeuvre or special unit

13     in the CSB of Banja Luka, that was a unit that Mr. Zupljanin could deploy

14     with the approval of the ministry.  That is us.

15        Q.   And the document in front of you shows the total strength of the

16     reserve forces, and it includes the manoeuvre unit; is that correct?  You

17     can see that it is dated the 21st of December 1989, and it is signed by

18     Slobodan Djuric, head of unit -- head of section, who was in charge of

19     these things at the time.

20        A.   I don't know if it was Djuric, Slobodan.  I can't answer that

21     question.  Obviously he was, but, as I said, in any CSB there was a

22     certain unit that dealt with issues concerning the reserve forces,

23     including the manoeuvre or special unit, that would be established

24     according to need.

25        Q.   And this document speaks about that, doesn't it?

Page 5853

 1        A.   Yes, it does.  It shows a number of the members of the reserve

 2     forces of -- by CSB Banja Luka and the number -- the strength of the

 3     manoeuvre special unit that could be activated in case of need.

 4        Q.   And here in line one where it reads "number of police stations;"

 5     then to the right we can read "manoeuvre unit;" and in the extreme right,

 6     "total strength."

 7        A.   Yes.  For example, there were 13 police stations in the

 8     Banja Luka municipality.  They were SJBs or traffic police stations.  And

 9     out of the total personnel, amounting to 825 in the SJBs in Banja Luka,

10     170 were members as -- manoeuvre units in the Banja Luka region.

11        Q.   And this manoeuvre unit has nothing to do with the special unit

12     that was in Sarajevo, commanded by Dragan Nikic?

13        A.   Yes, it had.  Because they were connected through equipment and

14     for training purposes and in case of need.  The manoeuvre unit that would

15     be deployed in the area of Banja Luka would act in co-operation with the

16     one from Sarajevo if, according to our estimate, the local manoeuvre unit

17     were unable to deal with the situation, then we would also deploy our own

18     manoeuvre unit.

19        Q.   But I thought with regard to the establishment of units that they

20     were different.

21        A.   No, no.  But in case of need, the special unit of the MUP could

22     intervene in the Banja Luka area and, according to need, use part or all

23     of the manoeuvre structures that were present in the area.

24        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Zepinic.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to mark

Page 5854

 1     this document for identification.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Tell us, Mr. Krgovic, who issued the documents

 3     and --

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The document was issued by the SUP

 5     of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo.  And it is signed

 6     by Slobodan Djuric, head of section.  And it speaks about the very issue

 7     I -- that Mr. Zupljanin is concerned with, namely, the manning or the

 8     composition of the manoeuvre units.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, this document appears to be issued

10     on the 21st of February, 1989, which was well in advance of the armed

11     conflict.

12             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Exactly, in advance of the appointment of the

15     witness.

16             So my question would be does this also reflect the situation

17     after April 1992?

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I understood the

19     witness, and that's why I asked him because he was in the MUP, about the

20     -- how the manoeuvre unit was established and how the system functioned.

21        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, can you confirm that at the time while you were at

22     MUP the principle reflected in this document was respected?

23        A.   As far as I know, once we came to power we didn't changed the

24     strength of the manoeuvre units or the reserve forces, but in agreement

25     with the chiefs of police stations in the field, we launched some

Page 5855

 1     operational activities concerning staff, which -- to the effect that

 2     manoeuvre units be better equipped with staff.  But we didn't change the

 3     strength of the -- the manoeuvre unit or the active police forces, or,

 4     indeed, the reserve forces.

 5        Q.   You didn't change the organisational structure either.  It was

 6     the same as shown in this document.  Isn't that right?

 7        A.   Yes, it is right.

 8             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] So marked for

 9     identification.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D37, marked for identification,

11     Your Honours.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, I'm sure that you're aware of the fact that in 1991

14     war broke out Croatia, and that as a result of war operations, the

15     situation, the security situation changed dramatically in the territory

16     covered by the CSB Banja Luka; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   As a result of that, the MUP, which is your institution, and

19     other relevant political and state organs, started receiving reports

20     about the situation becoming more aggravated in the border area with

21     Croatia.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   As a result, you felt a need to strengthen the police force and

24     to undertake certain measures.  There were requests from CSB to deal with

25     the issue.

Page 5856

 1        A.   Not only the personnel issues.  In other terms, we were not able

 2     to deal with the problems that spilled over from Croatia, once the war

 3     broke out in Croatia.

 4        Q.   The MUP, on its own, and when I say the MUP, I mean the Ministry

 5     of Interior in Sarajevo, was not able to deal with the issues itself,

 6     because the circumstances were not depending on the MUP.

 7        A.   It was not within our purview to deal with the security and other

 8     political issues that could be felt in the regions of Banja Luka, Bihac,

 9     Western Herzegovina, Slovenia and Semberija at the moment when war broke

10     out in Croatia.  So not only MUP, but other bodies of power were involved

11     in all that, including the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

13     document 2D02085 -- 85.

14        Q.   In your binder, Mr. Zepinic, the document is under tab 2.

15             This document was issued by the CSB.  It is a letter which was

16     sent on the 27th of August, 1991, and we see the list of addressees.

17             Let's start with the bottom address, the Deputy Minister, that

18     was you; the minister; to the executive council of the SRBH Assembly; to

19     the SRBH Assembly; to the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina; and to

20     Mrs. Biljana Plavsic.

21             Can you confirm this?

22        A.   Yes.  You forgot the deputy prime minister, Mr. Simovic.

23        Q.   Yes, I had forgotten him.

24             Could you please turn to page 2 of this document.  And will you

25     see that the signatory of the document is Stojan Zupljanin.  Am I right?

Page 5857

 1        A.   Yes, you are.

 2        Q.   First of all, let me ask you whether you remember having received

 3     this document.

 4        A.   I can't tell you whether I received the document or not.  But

 5     given the fact that it was addressed to me, I'm sure that I received it.

 6     And if you have questions about the document --

 7        Q.   Yes.

 8        A.    -- and the answers provided by Mr. Zupljanin in his letter, on

 9     several occasions at the meetings of the government and the Presidency,

10     we requested the enlargement of the personnel of the active strength of

11     the police, as well as additional materiel and technical equipment for

12     public security stations.  Unfortunately, we did not receive the green

13     light either from the Presidency or the government for various reasons

14     which are beyond the scope of interest of this Trial Chamber.

15        Q.   You are familiar with the issues, and you are familiar with the

16     context of this letter?

17        A.   Yes, I am familiar with all that.  It was very present in all

18     CSBs, not only in Banja Luka --

19        Q.   And in this letter, in its first paragraph, due to the critical

20     and dramatic war circumstances around the border - and this is something

21     I already asked you about - Stojan Zupljanin requests some things.

22        A.   Yes.  As the minister we agree with that, and as you can see

23     Mr. Zupljanin says in the letter that the personnel had undergone the

24     required medical checkups in the centre for health protection in our

25     ministry.  So as far as the ministry was concerned, there was no problem.

Page 5858

 1     The only problem was who was going to pay for all that.  Let's not embark

 2     on political issues and talk about the required number of police

 3     officers.  It says here that Mr. Zepinic [as interpreted] requested the

 4     increase in the strength of the police force, and this bothered everybody

 5     else because everybody thought that if we increased the number of our

 6     personnel we would do something else and not what we put forth as the

 7     reason for the request.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can this document

 9     please be marked for identification.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, I'm sorry to say, this is altogether

11     completely blurred to me.  You have the benefit of being able to

12     understand what the letter says, but I not.  And according to the

13     witness's testimony, it's -- it's completely obscure to me what this

14     letter is about and what the numbers are that are referred to in the

15     documents.

16             So I don't know if could you be more helpful.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I'll try and be

18     brief.

19        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, in this document I have provided its summary, but it

20     wasn't enough.

21             Mr. Zupljanin requests an increase in the number of personnel in

22     the centres due to the war circumstances in Croatia.  And on the last

23     page he refers to the number of personnel that had to be employed.  He

24     says that they had undergone medical checkups, that the ministry had

25     approved all that, but those men still hadn't been appointed, and he

Page 5859

 1     requests assistance.

 2             Is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, before you decide whether to mark it

 5     for identification or not, could I have a query.

 6             Mr. Krgovic said these documents came from us.  This one doesn't

 7     have an ERN anywhere to be seen, so I'd like to know where it comes from.

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is from the batch

 9     of exculpating material, number 68.  I don't know whether I received it

10     from the government of Republika Srpska, from the centre for cooperation

11     The Hague Tribunal.  I'm sure that I saw some of the documents in

12     question.  Just a moment.  I'm going check in any case.  Because I have a

13     set of documents that I received from the centre for cooperation.  I

14     believe I have it, and I will double-check during the break, and I will

15     inform the Prosecutor about the provenance.

16             But for the time being, can this document please be marked for

17     identification.

18             JUDGE HALL:  I suppose for practical purposes, yes.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D38, marked for identification,

20     Your Honours.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, you certainly received quite a number of similar

23     reports which described the situation, the problems, the war in the

24     territory which was within the authority of the CSB Banja Luka.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 5860

 1        Q.   Those reports spoke about explosions, paramilitary units, and the

 2     incidents in the territory of the centre.  Am I right?

 3        A.   Yes, you are.

 4        Q.   You certainly received regular reports which were submitted

 5     either quarterly, annually, or every six months, as needed.

 6        A.   Every CSB was duty-bound to regularly submit their reports on

 7     work and the security situation in the territory.  And they also had a

 8     duty, and it was common practice of every police station and CSB to also

 9     assess the situation regularly and send dispatches to the ministry about

10     any incidents as soon as possible.

11        Q.   As a result of the need that arose, you, in agreement with other

12     relevant factors, in order to calm the situation down and to check what

13     happened, at one point you went to visit the territory of the centre as a

14     member of a commission.

15        A.   I wouldn't agree with you that I went only once.  I travelled

16     frequently and visited several areas, either on my own, with my

17     associates, with other government members.  And every time I went to an

18     area, I spoke to the relevant personnel in order to try and resolve the

19     situation.  As soon as I received reports from the field, the ministry

20     informed the government and the presidents about the deterioration of the

21     security situation and requested further instructions and assistance from

22     the other bodies who might have been of assistance in dealing with any

23     conflict situation.

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

25     2D04004.

Page 5861

 1        Q.   Which, Mr. Zepinic, is number 7 in your binder.

 2             Mr. Zepinic, this is a document issued by the Presidency of the

 3     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina which speaks about various

 4     visits to municipalities of Banja Luka, Bosanska Gradiska,

 5     Bosanski Dubica, and Bosanski Novi and information about the security

 6     situation in those municipalities.  Am I right?

 7        A.   Yes, you are.

 8        Q.   On page 1, you can see that -- let's wait for the document to

 9     appear on e-court before I put my question to you.

10             Nikola Koljevic, a member of the Presidency, visited the

11     municipalities in question, and on behalf of Ministry of the Interior,

12     under paragraph 2, you will see that Vitomir Zepinic, the Deputy Minister

13     of the interior; Avdo Hebib, the Assistant Minister were members of that

14     delegation and that there was also Miro Radovic and Djordje Jancevski.

15             You see this in the document, don't you?

16        A.   Yes.  Miro Radovic was the assistant chief of state security, and

17     Djordje Jancevski was the chief of administration.

18        Q.   And they were there.

19        A.   Yes, together with Dr. Koljevic on behalf of the Presidency we

20     toured the ground in order to verify the situation in the territory of

21     the Banja Luka region.

22        Q.   And further on it says that there were talks with the leadership

23     of Banja Luka municipality with the participation of the Banja Luka

24     corps, the chief of security of Banja Luka, and the chief of security

25     stationed in Banja Luka, and that you also visited refugees in various

Page 5862

 1     settlements?

 2        A.   Yes, we visited a group of refugees who were accommodated, as far

 3     as -- if memory serves me properly, in two schools.  They had fled

 4     Croatia.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel and witness please make

 6     pauses between questions and answers and try not to overlap.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] The interpreters, once

 8     again, are asking you to pause between questions and answers, both for

 9     you and the witness.  So please observe a small pause.

10             THE WITNESS:  Right, Your Honour.

11             MR. KRGOVIC:  I do my best, Your Honour.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Zepinic, further on reference is made to the

13     topics discussed at the meeting.  And the first one is the security

14     situation in the municipalities of Bosanski Dubica, Bosanska Gradiska,

15     and Bosanski Novi.  Am I right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Further on in page 2 in the third paragraph from the bottom it

18     says that unique assessment on the part of all the participants in the

19     talks was that the situation in the municipalities bordering on the

20     Republic of Croatia from Derventa to Bosanska Kostajnica had all the

21     characteristics of aggravating circumstances.  Do you agree?

22        A.   Of course, I agree because we had a war on our door-step.

23        Q.   Further on, there's certain observations made by the bodies of

24     the interior.  And in the next paragraph, or the three following

25     paragraphs, 5, 6, and 7, a reference is made to the increased presence of

Page 5863

 1     members of the MUP Croatia in the areas bordering on Bosnia, that there

 2     are -- the control measures were stepped up.  And finally in the last

 3     paragraph reference is made to the entrance of MUP specials from Croatia

 4     into Bosanski Novi, as well as the appearance of individuals and smaller

 5     groups of members of MUP Croatia in the territory of the SRBH in uniform.

 6             Do you remember that?

 7        A.   Yes.  There were such occasions.  You have to bear in mind that

 8     members of the MUP of Croatia, or a lot of them from the territory of

 9     Bosnia-Herzegovina, did arrive and attended several meetings with

10     Mr. Gojko Susak [as interpreted] who was the minister of the interior of

11     Croatia.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Mr. Boljkovac.

13        A.   And I pointed to the problems that those men who arrived for

14     visits arrived uniforms with no arms and that that caused additional

15     security problems in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that

16     that represented a problem that the Ministry of Croatia should bear in

17     mind, because any presence of men in uniform from Croatia or from any

18     other state for that matter was an additional cause of the aggravation of

19     the security situation and the increase of tensions in the territory of

20     Bosnia and Herzegovina.

21        Q.   I will not go through the rest of the document which speaks about

22     a series of incidents in that area.

23             Please go on to page 4 of this document, where it says that:

24             "With regard to the overall situation in the area of the CSB, the

25     local forces cannot cope with the current conditions with regard to the

Page 5864

 1     manpower at their disposal or their equipment."

 2             Do you agree?

 3        A.   Yes, fully.  And that's why we requested from the cabinet and the

 4     Presidency to approve strengthening the MUP and approve additional

 5     equipment.  But they -- we never received that approval.  I don't want to

 6     go into the reasons for that.  But we tried, through cooperation with the

 7     MUPs of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and the federal MUP, which still

 8     was in existence at the time, as well as the General Staff, to integrate

 9     the overall security system to prevent the escalation of the crisis in

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11        Q.   And my last question about this document, on page 5, we can read

12     that it was observed that the CSB of Banja Luka and the SJBs of

13     Bosanski Novi, Bosanska Gradiska, and Bosanski Dubica, as far as their

14     personnel strength and materiel equipment allows, did all within their

15     power to stop the negative trends, but the efficiency was limited due to

16     their modest number -- strength of personnel and modest technical

17     abilities, which was partly made up for by mutual assistance.

18             Can -- as you confirmed, is that true?

19        A.   Well, I was present at the Presidency session when this was

20     discussed, and they -- where they said that -- criticism was uttered of

21     the cabinet of Bosnia-Herzegovina, because they failed to respond to the

22     situation in the area.

23        Q.   I seem to have read too fast for the interpreters.

24             So I read out that the deployment of the organs of the republic,

25     except for the MUP, hardly -- hardly took place at all.  Is that correct?

Page 5865

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to mark

 3     this document for identification.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, first of all, I missed the date of

 5     this document.  Secondly, I fail to see the relevance of this -- this

 6     document as you have explained, or as the witness has explained, seems to

 7     though that the security situation in Banja Luka, among other places, was

 8     being destabilized as a consequence of the imminent threats of war in

 9     Croatia and so that the chiefs of the CSBs in the regions affected by

10     this were asking for reinforcements, and they didn't get it.

11             This is the second document that you are showing to the witness

12     this morning which seems to -- to -- tentative to document this.  But

13     what exactly is the point that you wish the Court to draw from this?  I

14     mean, after all, it is not surprising that when a war is building up,

15     then inevitably the security situations in the surrounding areas is also

16     affected.

17             So if this is all that you want to show, then I fail to see the

18     relevance.  But I may have missed the point, and so please be helpful to

19     the Court and try explain what it is that you want to show with this

20     document.

21             And finally, thirdly, the document seems to be not immediately

22     overseeable in the sense that it is a document that goes on for five or

23     six pages or even more, I don't know.  So the context may be difficult

24     for the Chamber and, indeed, for the Prosecution to understand also.

25             Can you clarify on these three points.

Page 5866

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm trying to draw an

 2     analogy through this witness, namely that the situation in the Banja Luka

 3     region at the time when the witness was Deputy Minister of the interior

 4     was disastrous with interethnic conflict that later escalated into war.

 5     And that explosions, arson, et cetera, were a consequence of those

 6     events, rather than a planned and systematic action incited by the SDS,

 7     as the OTP alleged, or by other organs that were controlled by the

 8     Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 9             Likewise, that, in that context, concrete action was taken which

10     I will show based on the following document.  A joint action was launched

11     by this witness and my client to the effect that up until 1992 all ethnic

12     groups are treated equally and that the problems in the MUP and in the

13     CSB were not that serious.  And these are the events in which this

14     witness participated, together with my client, in trying to prevent that

15     from happening.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And, Mr. Krgovic, how does this speak to your

17     case?  What -- what significance does this have to the defence of your

18     client?

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It is relevant, like the Prosecutor

20     says, to know the wider context of the behaviour of the defendant in that

21     period and his participation in the joint criminal enterprise from late

22     1991 to 1992.  That is the period about which this witness is about to

23     speak some more.  And the concrete actions that we will get to, I would

24     -- I wanted to show what the real situation was and which activities were

25     taken, arrests, and the behaviour of the centre in the relevant period.

Page 5867

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  How long is the document?

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document has six

 4     pages, but this is the last or maybe the last-but-one that is not

 5     translated.  And I will no longer use untranslated documents.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Marked for identification.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D39, marked for identification,

 8     Your Honours.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, as a result of all these events in the Republic of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially in the Banja Luka region, paramilitary

12     formations arrived and armed groups that had come from Croatia and became

13     a serious security problem.

14        A.   Or, from Bosnia-Herzegovina, went to the combat theatre in -- in

15     Croatia and then returned.  Yes, correct.

16        Q.   And the CSB or Mr. Zupljanin reported to you about that in

17     detail, and you were acquainted with the problems in the region.  Right?

18        A.   Yes.  Although I would have liked him to give me more details

19     about the security situation in that region.

20        Q.   And, as a result of the problems with the paramilitary formation,

21     you went to Banja Luka, and together with Stojan Zupljanin and some

22     others, took some steps to arrest that paramilitary formation and have

23     them tried; correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  These were Croatian paramilitaries; is that

Page 5868

 1     correct?  And what were they prosecuted for?

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, these were Serb

 3     paramilitary formations.  I'm about to show a document now.

 4             Could we see document 2D0645 on e-court.  I apologise, the number

 5     is 695.  This document is translated.

 6             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]

 7             MR. KRGOVIC:  695, yes.

 8             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] There is no translation.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC:  I have it.

10             [Interpretation] The English translation is marked 2D02-0943 for

11     some reason.

12             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, can I ask that if -- this has

13     obviously been uploaded later because we didn't get a copy when he

14     printed these out, but if translations are uploaded later we can be

15     notified so that we can actually print them out ourselves.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the usher to

17     place this on the ELMO.  This is the English translation for the sake of

18     the Chamber and the Prosecutor.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]

20             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Sorry, Your Honours, it is

21     in e-court, but it wasn't in e-court when we were given the original

22     list.  So presumably it is a late translation.  So I'm asking that we be

23     notified if you upload something in e-court later.

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The translation was received very

25     recently.  But if we have it in e-court, then we don't need it on the

Page 5869

 1     ELMO.  Thank you.

 2        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, this document can be found under tab 8 in your

 3     binder.  It's meant to inform you, and it's addressed to you, about the

 4     conduct of armed groups in the area of the CSB.

 5             Do you remember receiving this document?

 6        A.   I cannot remember this particular document.  But I remember

 7     receiving various documents and reports that came in about the worsening

 8     of the security situation in the Banja Luka region.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document into

10     evidence.

11             JUDGE HALL:  To what end, Mr. Krgovic?

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender it because

13     we have an English translation.

14             JUDGE HALL:  No.  I mean, apart from it being addressed to the

15     witness, what's -- what's the connection -- how is it relevant?

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it speaks about the

17     behaviour of paramilitary formations in the region covered by the CSB of

18     Banja Luka, and the witness knows the context -- context of this document

19     and its content, that's what I asked him.

20        Q.   Isn't that correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22             MS. KORNER:  Do we have the report which is allegedly enclosed?

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, that is the

24     following document.

25             So could we now show Exhibit 2D030381 to the witness.  And this

Page 5870

 1     document is translated.

 2        Q.   You can you find it under tab 10 in your binder, sir.

 3             This is a report on the criminal and other unlawful activities of

 4     Veljko Milinkovic and other members of paramilitary formations from the

 5     area of Prnjavor.  Correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   It is dated December 2nd, 1991, and please look at the last page.

 8     It is signed by Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             MS. KORNER:  Yes, but it cannot be the report which is enclosed

10     with the last letter, which is dated September.  I appreciate this report

11     I know about.  I'm just asking about the September report which is

12     allegedly enclosed with the letter.

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I received this from

14     the Prosecutor in the sequence I'm showing them now.  So one document

15     follows another.

16             I didn't change the order of the documents.

17             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm sorry, the document, the first

18     document that was shown to Dr. Zepinic was a letter of the 30th of

19     September, enclosing a report, apparently, or whatever the date it was.

20     So it -- 23rd of September.  Which is not one of our documents, because

21     it has no ERN number.  The document that is now being shown, this report

22     in December is certainly a document from us, but it is not -- it cannot

23     be the document enclosed with the letter dated the 23rd of September.

24     That's my query.

25             So that's what I asked.  Where is the report that goes with that

Page 5871

 1     letter?  Which, the letter does not come from our collection.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Indeed, Mr. Krgovic, I thought the report that you

 3     were about to put up would have been the other part of the -- what you

 4     were seeking to exhibit, in other words, the letter and its accompanying

 5     document.  But clearly this cannot be the report, as Ms. Korner has said.

 6             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, my

 7     mistake.  The problem is that I do have the report dated September 30th,

 8     but it is not translated.  But its content is similar to the content of

 9     this one, so -- but can I show the report dated September 30th.  I

10     apologise once more for making this mistake.

11             I wanted to avoid using untranslated documents and instead

12     focused on translated documents in order to speed up things.

13             Could we please see --

14             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, with respect, it is insufficient to say

15     that the other -- the untranslated document is in substance the same as

16     the one that is now up.

17             Could we -- having regard to the fact that you now appreciate

18     that that wasn't translated, if you wish to deal with the present

19     document, the December document, then, phrase your question accordingly.

20             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, it is more than that.  These are not

21     documents that we have.  It is one of the concerns that I have, that

22     documents are being produced which we have never seen, and the OTP

23     cleared out the CSB in Banja Luka in 1998.  My concern is, firstly, the

24     provenance of these document; secondly, that if a letter is put in

25     saying, Here's a report, we get the report that that goes with it.  That

Page 5872

 1     has not been uploaded into e-court.

 2             So, therefore, I object to the production of the -- and certainly

 3     MFI'g the letter of the, whatever it was, 30th of September, and --

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Of course, the Chamber had not ruled on that

 5     application.

 6             MS. KORNER:  No.  But I want to make it clear that part documents

 7     like this, if is a document is to be put in, the full document must go

 8     in.  Otherwise, it is misleading in the extreme.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner.

11             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Didn't the forwarding letter of 23 September 1991

13     have the ERN number 2D02/0943?

14             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]

15             JUDGE HALL:  Right.  Thanks.

16             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated]

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for Ms. Korner, please.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Never mind.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. Krgovic, your microphone is on.  Could you

20     please switch it off.

21             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Our numbers have a

22     particular stamp.

23             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a storm in a

24     teacup.  Much ado about nothing.  These documents were downloaded quite a

25     long time ago, we received from the Republika Srpska or rather from the

Page 5873

 1     centre for cooperation with the Tribunal.

 2             I will do an additional checkup to make sure that all -- the

 3     Prosecutor already has all the documents and that all of them are ERN

 4     numbers or at least the Prosecution number.  We requested all these

 5     documents from the commission for cooperation with the Tribunal in

 6     Banja Luka, based on the Prosecutor's documents.  Until this is resolved,

 7     I'm going to ask for all the documents to be marked for identification,

 8     and then I will submit the relevant number of the documents to the

 9     Prosecutor.

10             However, at the end of the day, I just wanted to make things

11     easier for the witness.  I can put questions to him even without

12     documents, but I will have an objection from the Prosecutor, like with

13     the last witness.  That's why I decided to use documents, and that was

14     the whole essence of me using the documents in the first place, or opting

15     for the documents.

16             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I have no objection -- can I make this

17     absolutely clear, I have no objection to the documents being used

18     hopefully with translations, provided the full document is given to us.

19     That's all, at the moment, my objection relates to.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, whatever we had we

21     submitted to the Prosecutor, and that is the point.  And the only problem

22     is the fact that the translations are missing, as far as can I see it.

23             MS. KORNER:  No, Your Honour, I'm sorry to waste time like this.

24     But Mr. Krgovic has just waived the report which he says was attached to

25     the letter, but we haven't got it because it has not been uploaded into

Page 5874

 1     e-court.

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just check the

 3     number of this 30 September report.

 4             Just a moment.  Please bear with me.

 5             2D030381.

 6             I apologise, Your Honours, 2D020705 is the correct number of the

 7     document.

 8             Your Honours, this is the 30 September report.  I'm not going to

 9     be using it with the witness, because I have just decided to avoid using

10     any documents in the further course of cross-examination just to avoid

11     wasting the Trial Chamber's time and provoking the Prosecutor to object.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Good.  So we proceed.

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, because of the problem with translation --

15             JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE HALL:  For the record and for the sake of clarity, the --

18     not-yet-ruled-upon application to mark for identification the

19     September letter, we rule that it should not be so marked.

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, let's speed things along.  I'm sure that you know

22     that when you arrived that certain measures were taken and that that

23     group headed by Veljko Milinkovic and members of the Serb paramilitary

24     formations were apprehended, disarmed, and then, in cooperation with the

25     military and investigative organs, they were brought in and incarcerated.

Page 5875

 1             Is that right?

 2        A.   Yes, it is.

 3        Q.   That was an operation under your command or coordinated by you,

 4     to say the least.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Together with Stojan Zupljanin?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8             [In English] Can I say something more about this particular event

 9     because it is quite interesting to explain.

10             It was decision by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina to

11     take action against paramilitary formations and the paramilicia that we

12     had in Bosnian Krajina.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The Serb military formations that had arrived

14     from where exactly, and when?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  Those were Serb military para

16     formations from Bosnia and Herzegovina, a group headed by Mr. Milinkovic.

17     If my memory serves me well there were some 60 of them who crossed the

18     border of Croatia and participated in war there, and then returned to the

19     territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and their presence was detrimental for

20     the security situation in Banja Luka.  Mr. Zupljanin and his associates

21     informed us regularly about all that, and I, in turn, informed about that

22     the government and the Presidency.

23             The Presidency appointed Mr. Simovic as the vice-president of the

24     government for internal affairs and myself were appointed to hold a

25     meeting with General Uzelac which took place at his command.  Mr. Simovic

Page 5876

 1     was not present, and I asked from General Uzelac, given my view that the

 2     police in Banja Luka was unable to arrest that group, that was well armed

 3     and had a lot of experience from the -- previous theatres of war, I

 4     requested them to give me his consent for the military police to give us

 5     support in arresting Milinkovic and his group.  This was, indeed, done.

 6     And that was done by the manoeuvre unit of the Banja Luka security

 7     services centre with my full consent and with my coordination, and so

 8     Mr. Milinkovic and his group - and can you see it in the document - on

 9     15th of November, was remanded in custody in keeping with the law.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So, if I understand you correctly, we are

11     speaking of a group of Bosnian Serb paramilitaries who came from

12     somewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina in November 1991, crossed the boarder

13     from Bosnia into Croatia and took part in the armed conflict there on the

14     Serb side, I suppose, against the Croatians.  And then returned to

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina and billeted themselves in Banja Luka where they

16     created problems.

17             Is that correctly understood?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we did not understand each

19     other.

20             [In English] We are talking about --

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  This is exactly why it is important to be clear

22     about these matters.  Otherwise, the Chamber will have no use --

23     [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             THE WITNESS:  We are talking -- yes, all right.

25             Your Honour, we are talking about paramilitary Serbs -- Serbs

Page 5877

 1     from Bosnia being involved in war in Croatia, coming back from Croatia

 2     into Bosnia, because they, you know, citizens of Bosnia.  They live

 3     there.  Fully equipped with military equipment, you know, weapons or

 4     something like that.  Making security and other, I would say, functioning

 5     including --

 6             [Interpretation] And let me just note that, Mr. Milinkovic forced

 7     the president of the municipality in Prnjavor to leave his office, to

 8     take his clothes off and remain only in his shorts, and leave the office.

 9     I apologise to the ladies.

10             That was the kind of criminal behaviour that my service could not

11     tolerate irrespective of any support that they may have received from

12     anybody, either from Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina.  That's why I asked

13     the government and the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina to allow me to

14     activate the manoeuvre unit in Banja Luka, in order to arrest that

15     criminal group, and that was, indeed, done.  The operation was headed by

16     Mr. Zupljanin, coordinated by myself.  We carried out professional part

17     or our involvement, and that action was carried out in a fully

18     professional manner.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I understand.  And this was, indeed, my

20     understanding of your testimony a while ago.

21             But what exactly did this group do, other than forcing gentleman

22     to strip his clothes in his office?  How did they pose a threat to the

23     security in Banja Luka?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that group was well

25     armed.  They had returned from Croatia.  That group ill-treated all the

Page 5878

 1     citizens.  That group disarmed police members at certain check-points.

 2     That group threatened the population with arms and in all sorts of other

 3     ways.  During the investigation we obtained information that they had

 4     also been involved in financial crimes and the resale of arms stolen in

 5     Croatia, in Kosovo, and then also the resale of stolen fuel that was then

 6     sold in the territory of Banja Luka.  So the only -- it was not just that

 7     they had weapons and threatened the population and they decided to shoot

 8     those weapons at any occasion, but that group was also involved in other

 9     criminal activities in the general territory of the former Yugoslavia,

10     and not only in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the territory

11     of the municipality of Banja Luka.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But, Mr. Zepinic, it sounds to me as if this

13     group of paramilitaries were terrorising the population in Banja Luka in

14     general.  So it wasn't only directed against Croatians or Muslims; it was

15     just a general nuisance to everyone that lived in Banja Luka area.  Is

16     that correct?

17             THE WITNESS:  That's correct, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So, Mr. Krgovic, if this is correctly understood,

19     then how is this relevant to the defence of your client?

20             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you look at the

21     documents, you will see that they were a general security threat.

22     However, most of their activities and actions were targeted Muslim and

23     Croatian populations.  That's why I wanted to show the Trial Chamber a

24     report dated 5 December 1991 which speaks about the individual cases,

25     such as the case of physical or bodily harm inflicted on Cemal Najib [as

Page 5879

 1     interpreted] who was a Muslim, and that total number of such incidents

 2     given the fact that they were an ethnically uniform formation, composed

 3     of only one ethnicity, and the fact that they were active, how did that

 4     influence interethnic relationship and fear among the Muslims.  And all

 5     that is contained in this report that I was going to show to the witness

 6     and as my next document.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I don't object to that.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             MS. KORNER:  My I assist?

10             It may not be clear at the moment, but the Milinkovic and the

11     Wolves of Vujic figure quite strongly in the events that tool place in

12     the indictment period.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That may well be, Ms. Korner, but my problem is

14     that this contradicts what the witness has just told us.

15             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Well, that's a matter for

16     the Defence, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Anyway, it is passed time for the break.  We have to

18     continue to consider this.

19             We return in 20 minutes.

20                           [The witness stands down]

21                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 p.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, there are two matters before the

24     usher enters the witness inside the courtroom.

25             First, I would like the record to show that 1D91, which was MFI'd

Page 5880

 1     document, it was MFI'd due to requested revision of translation.  The

 2     revision has been received, and it has been uploaded in the e-court.

 3             And, therefore, I would move the Trial Chamber to admit the 1D91,

 4     as -- as exhibit.

 5             That's one thing.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  1D91 according to my notes was a letter from

 8     Stanisic dated 17th July, 1993.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  To all CSB requesting information on security and

11     crimes, et cetera, on a daily basis.

12             We MFI'd it, according to my notes, for the verification of the

13     date.  Is that correct?

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  That -- that is correct, Your Honour.  There was a

15     verification of translation, because the translation was not

16     corresponding to the original document.  And now this -- this document

17     with the revised translation has been received and uploaded in e-court,

18     and, therefore, I'm asking the Trial Chamber now to admit the document

19     fully.

20             JUDGE HALL:  So we lift the MFI qualification.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And the second matter.

23             MR. ZECEVIC:  And the second matter is, Your Honours, we

24     requested four hours of cross for this witness.  Now, I'm mindful of the

25     -- of the Trial Chamber's decision to -- to have the extended sitting for

Page 5881

 1     one session in the afternoon.  Therefore, I don't know how long

 2     Mr. Krgovic will have of his cross-examination, but I just want to -- I

 3     just want to inform the Trial Chamber that we are -- that we are very

 4     close to four hours right now overall -- of overall time for the

 5     cross-examination.  At this point already.  Thank you very much.

 6             What I was trying to say -- we don't -- we don't know at this

 7     point whether we will use the whole four hours, but maybe it would be --

 8     it would make sense that we notify the translation department, or whoever

 9     we need to notify, that there might be additional time that is required

10     in the afternoon, if possible, of course.

11             Thank you very much.

12                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

13             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, could you assist us by indicating how

14     much time you think you have left in cross-examination of this witness?

15             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honour, I have five or six questions and two

16     documents, that's all.  Let's say 15 minutes.

17                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Zecevic, are you asking for more than one

19     additional session this afternoon?

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, Your Honour, we are not asking for anything

21     that we haven't asked before.  We asked for four hours of cross.

22             Now if we add to the remaining -- the remaining hours plus one

23     session, I believe we are almost we are at four hours at this point, or

24     even a bit less than four hours.

25             So what we are asking is that we are given the full four hours.

Page 5882

 1     If that means that we need to have an additional part of the second

 2     session in the afternoon, so ... there might be a need for that.  We

 3     don't know at this point, Your Honours.  I just wanted to put the

 4     Trial Chamber on notice about that.

 5             Thank you.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE HALL:  The -- before the Chamber decides on this, we need

 8     to know what the position of the accused persons are, because the

 9     immediate an obvious personal disadvantage to them is that a -- a further

10     extended session impinges on their exercise time and those ancillary

11     considerations.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours.  Maybe we can continue,

13     and in the meantime find out if that is -- what the position of the --

14             JUDGE HALL:  No, the problem is the arrangements with the

15     Registry has to make -- has to be notified as early as possible.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  If you give us a moment, we can --

17             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, please.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  We can communicate with our clients.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

20                           [Defence counsel confer]

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  There is no problem with the accused, Your Honours.

22     Thank you very much.

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 5883

 1        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, let us continue.

 2             I will try not to dwell on documents too much.  Let us see

 3     document 2D030381 in e-court, please.  And, Mr. Zepinic, you can find it

 4     at tab 10.

 5             This is a report about the criminal activities of

 6     Veljko Milinkovic, who later led the paramilitary formation, the Wolves

 7     from Vucjak, and he is mentioned as the perpetrator of many crimes

 8     against the Muslim and Croatian populations.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please repeat the last part of

10     his question.  It was too fast for the interpreters.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, unfortunately, the interpreters did

12     not catch the last part of your question so they ask that you repeat it.

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Essentially what I wanted to ask

14     has been interpreted so that it is okay.

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  But the witness's reply

16     was not translated.  So could the witness please repeat also.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zepinic, could you be good enough to repeat

18     your answer to the question.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was asked whether I was familiar

20     with his criminal activity after his arrest, and my reply was negative.

21             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, on page 4 of this document, where there is a

23     description of the misdeeds of this group, it says that Milan Hajrudinic

24     [phoen], a member shot five shots from his fire-arm and wounded a person

25     whose name we didn't catch.  It's on page 4.  A Muslim, obviously.  It

Page 5884

 1     was obviously a crime against a Muslim.

 2             And the second part, so the second paragraph where it says that

 3     the illegal activity of this group in the area of Prnjavor, which had

 4     been going on for months causing fear and discomfort, created a rather

 5     electrified situation among the staff of the police due to numerous

 6     provocations and direct attacks on the -- on the police staff.

 7             This activity also further aggravated inter-ethnic tensions

 8     because this group consisted only of Serbs.

 9        A.   I didn't know about the ethnic composition of Milinkovic's group,

10     nor did I care.  I was interested in what the security services could do

11     to stop the -- this illegal activity, this intimidation of the

12     population, including Muslims.  That is, intimidation of the population

13     looting and threatening persons with fire-arms.  I wanted this group to

14     be eliminated.  But I cannot speak about the ethnic composition of that

15     group, nor was I at all interested in it.  I was interested in taking all

16     measures possible to eliminate that group, and make it impossible for to

17     them to continue, especially since they had been as brazen to attack a

18     police station and members of the SJB.

19        Q.   Only one part is missing, when you spoke that you were not

20     interested in the ethnic composition and of the attacks on Muslims,

21     although Mr. Zupljanin had informed you that entered.

22        A.   Yes, I know that they intimidated some Muslims in the area, they

23     threatened them, and they even looted their houses.  But they did the

24     same to persons of other ethnicities in the Banja Luka area, so that they

25     were a general -- generally dangerous for the population and the security

Page 5885

 1     services in the Banja Luka region.

 2        Q.   And now you -- you omitted to say the part that I want to hear,

 3     of which you were informed that Mr. Zupljanin --

 4        A.   I think that his deputy, Bajazid, if I remember well, a Muslim,

 5     also informed me in one of his phone calls that the Muslim population in

 6     the Banja Luka region was extremely discomforted due to these threats.

 7     Also due to the fact the members of these groups were exclusively Serbs,

 8     but that wasn't anything that I cared about.

 9        Q.   And on page 7, if you turn to that page, it says that the

10     investigative magistrate, the last sentence in this paragraph of the

11     court in Prnjavor, ruled on detention and that concluded your part of --

12     that put an end to your role in this.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, you also received information that, among the

15     refugees, either Serbs or Croats that pass the through the territory of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina, a certain number of members of armed forces was

17     hiding.  I will show you a document dated the 5th of December, and that

18     will be my last document.  It is Exhibit 2D020682.

19             This document essentially speaks about an incident at Kljuc,

20     where, on the occasion of the passing through of a convoy of refugees, a

21     number of ZNG members was detected; that is, Croatian soldiers who didn't

22     have any ID on them.

23             Please look at the document, page 2, the third paragraph from the

24     top, where there's a -- a general description, and it goes on on page 3.

25        A.   Could you please tell me where exactly the document is?

Page 5886

 1        Q.   You can find it at tab 15.  I apologise; I didn't mention that.

 2             Basically on this second page, it says when a convoy passes a

 3     state border and has a security escort, the -- normally the authorities

 4     of Bosnia-Herzegovina had to be informed, and they would be escorted by

 5     police.

 6             That was usual practice, wasn't it?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   It obviously follows from this report that this wasn't the case

 9     here, and we can read that in the last paragraph, that this convoy was

10     checked, and a certain number of persons wearing MUP uniforms were found.

11        A.   I don't remember this particular incident, but I know that we had

12     a problem with some convoys which were sometimes escorted by the European

13     community monitors or the Red Cross.  But among those persons there were

14     sometimes people without any personal documents or persons that had taken

15     part in the combat in Croatia on either side.

16        Q.   And the regular police procedure would have been when this convoy

17     was being checked for those people to produce their IDs, and if they

18     hadn't any, they would have been detained to verify their identity.

19        A.   Yes.  But most of the refugees that arrived were without any

20     personal documents so that was an additional problem for the operational

21     services in the area where such convoys were stopped, in order to check

22     the identity of these persons.  It was impossible to do so, where they

23     were from, so frankly, we didn't know what to do with them.

24        Q.   And normally since they were all conscripts, the police and

25     military organs were also included to conduct the necessary checkups.

Page 5887

 1        A.   Yes, we included all relevant factors in Bosnia-Herzegovina to

 2     establish the identity of these persons to the -- to the extent possible,

 3     because this was -- this occurred very frequently.

 4        Q.   And since these people came mostly by way of Kljuc or

 5     Mrkonjic Grad that was mostly the route of those convoys, if you know

 6     that.

 7        A.   I cannot give you a precise answer as to the routes of those

 8     convoys and where they were coming from.  I remember that there were huge

 9     problems with the establishment of the identity of persons on these

10     convoys and who wore various uniforms.  Whether they were members of

11     armed forces in their country, Croatia, we were unable to tell, but there

12     were persons in uniform among them.

13             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with regard to the

14     witness's reply, I would like to mark this document for identification.

15             JUDGE HALL:  So marked.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D40, marked for identification,

17     Your Honours.

18             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, finally, you mentioned that you knew Mr. Zupljanin

20     and that you had contacts with him while you were an executive in the MUP

21     of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  So I'm referring to the period in which you

22     collaborated.  And as far as can I tell from your evidence, he was a fair

23     co-worker of yours?

24        A.   I cannot say anything to the contrary.  He carried out

25     instructions passed on to him from the MUP.  I can -- I know now that

Page 5888

 1     there was some dispatches that he sent out behind my back, but, well ...

 2        Q.   Probably it was about a problem that cannot be taken care of in

 3     the framework of the MUP, and you saw that some documents I showed you

 4     were not only addressed to you only, but almost all relevant in

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  So if you want to resolve a problem that doesn't

 6     depend on the MUP only, so you tried to find support wherever you can

 7     find it, right?

 8        A.   Well, I did require my co-workers from the field to send copies

 9     of any reports that say are sent to me to persons that covered security

10     issues from the cabinet or the assembly.  It was a sort of attempt to

11     show, if nothing else, that other institutions and persons should be

12     worrying about the security situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina too, and not

13     only me.

14        Q.   In other words, the burden of dealing with some problems that

15     reflect on the work of the MUP was handed over to a higher level.

16        A.   The political parties should have dealt with some issues through

17     their agreement, but that hot potato was often transferred to the

18     Ministry of the Interior.  Instead of dealing with the political issues

19     in the political way, things were done differently.

20             MS. KORNER:  Just for the moment, going back to the transcript at

21     line 18:

22             "Q.  Probably it was about the problem it cannot be taken care of

23     in the," it then reads, "FYROM work."  Which is, by my understanding, the

24     Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.  I don't know what the question

25     was, but it can't have been that.

Page 5889

 1             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  It has been recorded wrongly.

 2     I asked you about the problem in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina that

 3     could not be resolved by the MUP.  I was talking about Bosnia and

 4     Herzegovina, not about Macedonia.

 5        A.   Yes, I agree with that.

 6        Q.   You will agree with me that under the circumstances and

 7     especially in early 1992 when you were faced with the breakup of

 8     Bosnia-Herzegovina and mounting tensions, the MUP could not do more than

 9     they could do during that period while you were in office in the MUP.  Am

10     I right?

11        A.   Well, the MUP could, and I'm sorry that we didn't.  I'm sorry

12     that we did not arrest the members of the Presidency, the government, and

13     the assembly.  I'm sorry that we did not stage a coupe and give the

14     people an opportunity to state their will.  I'm sorry I didn't do that,

15     because I didn't do it because it would have been misconstrued.  I was

16     not power-thirsty.  All I wanted was for my former state to be the state

17     with a rule of law, for the laws to be implemented.  However, I put

18     myself in a situation to have to confront those who thought that they

19     were the law.  And that is why many of my colleagues asked me how come I

20     had not arrested all the Presidency members?  How come I had not given

21     the people to -- an opportunity to state their will?  At that moment, it

22     would have been the craziest of ideas.  God know how I would have ended.

23     In any case, I would not have been able to testify here today.  That's

24     the first reason.

25             And the second reason was that I was not at all interested in

Page 5890

 1     power.

 2        Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Zepinic.  I have no further questions

 3     for you.

 4             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I forgot to tender into evidence

 5     2D030381.  The document has been translated.  It is the information about

 6     the criminal activity of Veljko Milinkovic.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Marked or -- or -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

 8             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this

 9     document into evidence, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Admitted and marked.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 2D41, Your Honours.

12             MS. KORNER:  Just before counsel for Stanisic cross-examines.

13             Mr. Zepinic gave evidence on Thursday that he had listened to an

14     intercept of a conversation between Zupljanin and Karadzic, and that he

15     recognised the voice of Zupljanin from his dealings with him.  There's

16     been no cross-examination on that, so can we take it there is no dispute

17     was indeed Mr. Zupljanin's voice that the witness heard on the intercept?

18             JUDGE HALL:  What's --

19             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the time being

20     our position is identical to the position of Mr. Zecevic.  We contest all

21     the intercepted conversations for the reasons that have been already been

22     put forth by my learned friend Mr. Zecevic.  Neither I nor my client had

23     an opportunity to listen to the audiotapes, although they have been

24     disclosed to us, so I can't confirm this fact.  I adhere to my position

25     that -- and I would like to defer my final position on the entirety of

Page 5891

 1     the intercepted conversations to a later stage.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, the short answer to what are you now

 3     saying is that, of course, the Chamber has made a ruling.

 4             But I come back to ask Ms. Korner, could you remind me as to what

 5     -- was it marked for identification?

 6             MS. KORNER:  It was, Your Honour.  It's P887.  And, Your Honour,

 7     it is a different story.  That's a different matter, whether or not, at

 8     the end of cross-examination of any witnesses who may deal with the

 9     actual recording and the like, that is one matter.  But this witness has

10     given clear evidence that he recognises, and I emphasise, recognises the

11     voice.  If the accused has not had an opportunity to listen to this, or

12     to read it - which surprises me, because it was uploaded into e-court, we

13     said we were going to do it, he must remember the conversation - then he

14     should do it before the witness leaves.  Because, Your Honours, it is

15     important.

16             This -- of course, is evidence which goes directly to whether or

17     not the voice on it is -- is that of -- of Mr. Zupljanin.  And I said

18     this all along.  It is clearly an important matter.  And if there is it

19     an issue, then it has to be put to the witness.

20             This is it not something -- the obligation to put your case

21     relating to important matters is a strict one.  It is not good enough to

22     say we haven't listened to it, and our position is we dispute everything

23     on intercepts.  This the evidence.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  If I may be heard on the matter, Your Honours, if

Page 5892

 1     it pleases the Court.

 2             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated]

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I believe that Ms. Korner, with all

 4     due respect, remark is unfounded.  We have the ruling, which is very

 5     explicit.  Either the witness is a party or is present.

 6             Now, if the witness says -- like in this case, I recognise the

 7     voice.  As I said previously, he might recognise the voice, but it

 8     doesn't mean that the contents of the speech, of the conversation between

 9     the two are such as they are in the transcript.

10             Therefore, it would be just a simple waste of time to

11     cross-examine the witness.  We ask the witness, does he -- does he know

12     the contents of the -- of the -- of this particular conversation?  He

13     says he doesn't.  That is why it was offered for MFI in -- in accordance

14     with your -- with your ruling, Your Honours.

15             I mean, if we -- if we are supposed to ask the witness to confirm

16     that he recognised the other voice, I don't see what would be the point

17     except loss of time, with no -- with no particular reason whatsoever.

18             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, Your Honour, that is not right.

19             It does make a difference.  And, Your Honour, leaving aside the

20     content, nobody is suggesting that should have to be dealt with, but the

21     voice recognition, I emphasise recognition, if it is disputed that this

22     is the voice of Zupljanin, then that's a different matter.  We have to

23     call other evidence.  If it is not disputed, then we don't have to.  So

24     it is not a waste of time.  May I say, I will be saying exactly the same

25     about the conversations with Stanisic.  The content is one other matter,

Page 5893

 1     you know, whether they have been interfered with or whatever.  But the

 2     voice -- that the witness can say, I recognise the voice is clearly

 3     important.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  But, Ms. Korner, hasn't the Chamber ruled that

 5     that --

 6             MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... No, you have not

 7     Your Honours.  You have ruled that we cannot have it admitted if he was

 8     not a party to the conversation.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Or was present.

10             MS. KORNER:  Yeah, or was present.  But that is completely

11     different, Your Honour.  We are entitled to know now, as soon as we deal

12     with this, whether or not there is a dispute, whatever the content may

13     be, that this is the voice of Zupljanin or Stanisic.

14             You cannot keep your powder dry forever.  This is an important

15     part of the evidence, and we say you're obliged under the Rules and under

16     the ruling in the case of Brdjanin to put your case.  Do you accept this

17     is the voice of Zupljanin and, later on, Stanisic or not?

18             It has nothing whatsoever to do as to whether the content has

19     been interfered with in some way.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE HALL:  Could you remind us, Mr. Krgovic --

22             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just like Mr. Zecevic

23     our Defence has realised that the intercepts have been MFI'd until

24     further corroboration.  And that's why I understood that I'm not supposed

25     to question the witnesses about the intercepts.  I can, but, the way I

Page 5894

 1     understood it, I did not include it in my cross-examination.

 2             In any case, I can ask the witness about all that, and I can

 3     spend about half an hour on that.  But I don't think it will be of any

 4     assistance to the Trial Chamber.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Krgovic, I'm sorry, this is beating around

 6     the bush.  The question that was put to you was: Do you accept that the

 7     voice heard on this particular intercept is the voice of your client?

 8     Yes or no.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you very much.

11             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, how can you say no, if you say you

12     haven't listened to it?

13             I'm sorry, Your Honours, that is simply not good enough.  This is

14     a "no" simply said to Your Honours in answer to the question.  Cannot be

15     right.

16             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely so.  Our position is as

17     follows.  From the very beginning, when it comes to the intercepts, we

18     believed that they are not illegal, that they have not been taken in an

19     illegal way, that a context has not been established, that the identity

20     of the participants has not been established in a proper way.  The

21     Prosecutor is taking shortcuts, and we do not accept their suggestions.

22     The first one that the voice indeed belongs to Stojan Zupljanin, and we

23     also dispute the context.  I believe that the two facets of that same

24     issue should go together and that they should not be separated.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Krgovic, what I'm trying to avoid is going back

Page 5895

 1     over ground which is fully covered and in respect of which we have ruled.

 2             In summary, what the position of the Prosecution is, is that when

 3     the witness was led on -- when evidence is led from the witness on this

 4     point in respect of this particular item he says that he recognised the

 5     voice as of that Zupljanin.

 6             The -- your inability to challenge that evidence, that positive

 7     evidence which the witness gave, is, as I understand it, based on the

 8     fact that the -- you, with the assistance of your client of course, have

 9     not had an opportunity to yourselves to have heard the transcript -- to

10     have heard the intercept.  The -- and the -- I don't know what your

11     position is in terms of the transcript of the -- of the intercept.  But

12     the position of the Prosecution is that the document, having been marked

13     for identification on the basis that there was this challenge to -- is

14     really a question of weight, not admissibility.  The result would be if

15     you failed to go further, that the document would -- the condition which

16     would have been imposed by the -- only having been marked for

17     identification would then disappear.

18             I think that that's a fair summary of the Prosecution's position.

19             MS. KORNER:  Can I explain.

20             There is evidence before the Court that, whether or not the --

21     the intercept is actually fully admitted after you have heard about its

22     provenance and so forth, that the voice on it is that of

23     Stojan Zupljanin.

24             That is clearly an important matter.  Because it goes to all --

25     it corroborates the identification which may be made in the future by the

Page 5896

 1     person who recorded it, which we have dealt with, which Judge Harhoff

 2     related to.

 3             It is therefore important evidence.  That evidence is now before

 4     the Court.  If it is later to be challenged, when, and if, Zupljanin were

 5     to give evidence, then it would be quite wrong that it had not been put

 6     to this witness who has given positive affirmative evidence, and that is

 7     the purpose of the rule that one must put the case.  Otherwise, it would

 8     entail getting Dr. Zepinic back again.  And that is why it has put.  And

 9     Mr. Krgovic is simply saying this for the sake of saying this.  If what

10     he is saying is correct, that neither he nor his client have actually

11     listened to the intercept, there is no problem by that.  In the next

12     adjournment, we have got them all on CD; we can get him; he can listen to

13     it.

14             What I'm asking Your Honours to do is make a ruling that, it is

15     so important, if it is disputed it must be put at this stage.

16             That's the ruling I'm asking for.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] We can actually play the

19     intercept straightaway.  We've got it here.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, I'm not sure I understand.  Are you

21     proposing to actually play the intercept in Court?

22             MS. KORNER:  Yes, so that, Your Honours, there can be no problem

23     about Mr. Zupljanin hearing his voice, so he doesn't have to wait for the

24     adjournment.  We can play it right now.  And then we can have whether or

25     not this is his voice.

Page 5897

 1             JUDGE HALL:  But, Ms. Korner, the Chamber is of the view that

 2     even if that were done, it cannot compel the Defence to answer the

 3     question as to whether they accept that it is the voice of Zupljanin or

 4     not, because that would be to -- that would, in essence, require them

 5     to --

 6             MS. KORNER:  Reveal their hand, yes.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Not merely reveal their hand, but to incriminate the

 8     -- the accused Zupljanin, which would be a clear violation of all the

 9     principles.

10             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, with the greatest of respect, that

11     simply is not right.  They are obliged, if they don't agree with what is

12     being said, to put what is their case.  What is the Defence case?

13             There has been evidence now given by, as I put -- as I said

14     earlier, a far more qualified witness than any of -- any of the

15     technicians or whatever to dealt with this.  That -- that's the point of

16     putting a case.  It is not incriminating your client; it is it whether it

17     is disputed.

18             We had this argument.  That's what the whole appeal is about in

19     the case of Brdjanin.  The case against Brdjanin was that he went on the

20     radio and made inflammatory statements against non-Serbs.  And we -- we

21     got to the position where a witness gave evidence of those inflammatory

22     statements; it was not challenged by Mr. Ackerman who was defending

23     Brdjanin.  And I asked the same question.  I said, Is it disputed that he

24     made those statements?  Yes, it is, said Ackerman, but I'm not going to

25     put it, I don't have to.  And that's why that case went to appeal, and

Page 5898

 1     that's the authority.

 2             So now we have clear evidence this is the voice of Zupljanin.  If

 3     it is disputed -- and this is an good reason for this, Your Honour,

 4     because if is disputed that it is his voice, leaving aside whether there

 5     has been any inference with it, we have to call a great deal of more

 6     evidence.  And that's why the Defence cannot sit on what is their Defence

 7     - indeed they should have said all of this in their pre-trial brief but

 8     didn't - whether it is accepted that's his voice.

 9             It is not incriminating his client.  It is it putting a proper

10     case.  This is the Defence case:  We do not agree this is his voice.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]

12             MS. KORNER:  Just a moment, Mr. Zecevic, let me finish.

13             They're saying we don't -- at the moment Mr. Krgovic is saying I

14     don't know one way or another whether it is his voice or not.  But if he

15     is actually going to say having heard this, or if that is their case,

16     that is not even the voice of Mr. Zupljanin, there is an grave mistake,

17     and Dr. Zepinic has made a grave mistake in identifying it, then that is

18     something that we are entitled to know right now because it reflects on

19     evidence we have to call.  It is one of the reasons why there is an

20     obligation to put your case.

21             I cannot make it any clearer than that, Your Honour.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, I'll try

23     and be very concise and very brief.

24             There is a significant difference between the Brdjanin and

25     Zupljanin case because we're talking about a show that was aired on the

Page 5899

 1     radio; whereas, here, we're talking about the intercepts.  We claim and

 2     our position is clear that those were illegal listening-in exercises

 3     which were not allowed under the law.  Therefore, there could be no

 4     parallel between the Brdjanin case and the ruling in the Brdjanin case

 5     and this situation.

 6             I really understand Ms. Korner's desire.  However, at the end of

 7     the day, she is only interested in the contents of the transcript of the

 8     intercept in question.  This is her primary interest.  Of course, she is

 9     interested in finding out that that was, indeed, a conversation between

10     the two individuals.  However, the essence of the matter lies in the

11     transcript itself.

12             Therefore, I really believe that it was a waste of time if we are

13     put in a position to question every witness and ask them to recognise the

14     voice of the participants.  Needless to say, they are not qualified to

15     recognise or to engage in voice recognition exercises.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, the Chamber having ruled on the

17     question of legality, it's only issue of contents that remains.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour, I'm just

19     trying to put things in a context and tell you what the position of the

20     Defence has been from the very start of this case.  That's why I

21     mentioned this, but I'm fully aware of the ruling made by this

22     Trial Chamber.  There is nothing in dispute there.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber has considered the representations of

25     counsel from both sides and essentially has decided not to revisit the

Page 5900

 1     ruling that it has already made.  We fully understand the logic and, if I

 2     may so, immanently sensible position which the Prosecution has taken but

 3     if the -- for tactical reasons, the Defence chooses not to show their

 4     hand at this point, Then, of course, certain consequences will follow for

 5     both sides.  But the Chamber will not revisit the ruling that it gave

 6     last week.

 7             MS. KORNER:  All right, Your Honour, I'm asking you this now on

 8     record.  It is your ruling that there is no obligation for the Defence to

 9     put its case on the voice recognition by this witness of both accused on

10     tape?

11             JUDGE HALL:  I would prefer to phrase it the way we have done it,

12     rather than accepting your -- adopting your formulation.

13             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm sorry, I'm asking -- because I'm

14     asking for, obviously -- can I make it clear, I consider this to be a

15     matter of such importance I'm asking for a clear ruling that we can, if

16     necessary, ask for an appeal.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, the ruling that we have made is that

18     the identity of a person who speaks in an intercept can be verified by

19     the interceptor; or can be verified by a witness, if that witness was

20     himself a party to the conversation, or was present in the room when the

21     conversation took place.

22             So the short answer to your point is that we do not believe that

23     Mr. Zepinic, as much as he may be able to recognise the voice, and as

24     much as we also think that it would be very helpful if the Defence would

25     agree to that, that Mr. Zepinic is not the appropriate witness to certify

Page 5901

 1     the identity of Mr. Zupljanin's voice.

 2             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I know that was your ruling, and I was

 3     prepared to leave that ruling, as it was.  But this is a different

 4     aspect, and it's a different ruling.

 5             If your ruling is that there is no obligation as -- I'm sorry I

 6     just need to go back to the words that were used.  If for tactical -- you

 7     are ruling, that the Defence are entitled, to, for tactical reasons not

 8     to put what its case is on what is a vital part of our case.  That's why

 9     I have asked for a clear ruling, Your Honours, because we say, with the

10     greatest respect, that cannot be right and is not within the Rules.

11             There comes a point which, as I say, should have taken place at

12     the pre-trial brief stage, by the Defence, where they have their

13     obligation to put their case and cannot, for tactical reasons, refrain.

14     This is such a case --

15             JUDGE HALL:  But then I said earlier, Mr. Korner, if I might

16     interrupt, that rather than adopting your formulation, the Chamber would

17     choose its own language.  We are not ruling as broadly, as you

18     represented, that the tactical reasons the Defence has no obligation just

19     to indicate its case.  Clearly we would not rule that.  What we have said

20     is that in this specific issue of whether the Defence has to disclose its

21     position on the positive evidence of this witness in which he says he

22     recognises the voice of Zupljanin on the tape, the Chamber will not

23     require the Defence to do so.  The Defence must -- and that is why I used

24     the word tactical.  The Defence must presumably know why it is running

25     its case in the way this it is.  There are, of course, with everything in

Page 5902

 1     life, consequences that follow from such decisions as are taken.  But the

 2     very narrow ruling of the -- of the Chamber on this, is that the Chamber,

 3     in its view, cannot require the Defence to so answer the question as put

 4     by the Prosecution.  It's as narrow as that.

 5             MS. KORNER:  There are no consequences because as I remarked

 6     yesterday or -- not yesterday, there is no ability to -- to make a wasted

 7     cost order against the Defence.  The logical progression from this ruling

 8     is, as we don't know one way or another whether if and when the defendant

 9     gave -- the accused gave evidence they would accept it was their voices,

10     we will have to instruct people, experts to make voice identifications

11     which will be identifications done by experts which costs an enormous

12     amount of money because we don't know what the Defence is, and you won't

13     order them to put it.

14             It is it simple as that.  The waste of money is fantastic.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, our ruling says that this witness

16     cannot certify the voice of any accused in -- in the case we're talking,

17     now, he was not present, et cetera, et cetera.  So what -- what would the

18     Defence have to answer to?  He cannot -- he says he recognises, but we

19     ruled he cannot.

20             MS. KORNER:  Well, how can he --

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So that finishes the business.

22             MS. KORNER:  Well, no, it doesn't, Your Honour, because it is

23     still evidence, because I asked about that when you made this ruling.  I

24     see Mr. Zecevic is standing.  It would be preferable if he sat down and

25     waited until I finished.

Page 5903

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  I just wanted to indicate to the Trial Chamber that

 2     I have something to say.  Thank you.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I asked whether I was prohibited from

 4     asking the witness whether he recognised, and I underline and emphasise

 5     recognised, the voice, and I was told not.

 6             So in this case, there is evidence that this witness who knew

 7     Zupljanin for a number of years and even better new Stanisic recognises

 8     the voice.

 9             Now that is evidence which is admissible because you ruled it to

10     be admissible; the weight that you give it is another matter.  But

11     clearly the weight is additionally added to it if it is not disputed that

12     it is his voice.  And it makes Dr. Zepinic in his recognition a more

13     credible witness.  That's why it is it important.  It also, as I said

14     before, corroborates whatever evidence, if it is accepted, we get

15     relating to the actual recording.

16             So it cannot be said that it is not relevant, admissible,

17     important evidence.

18             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will say only the

19     following so as not to use more time.

20             I really consider it very unfair on the part of the OTP to accuse

21     the Defence and everybody else of squandering money on experts and the

22     like.

23             The fact is the following.  My client voluntarily agreed to an

24     interview with the OTP.  He was interviewed for six days and not one

25     intercept was played to him.  The OTP had its opportunity then to play

Page 5904

 1     all those intercepts, and Mr. Stanisic would have been in a position to

 2     reply to his questions because he had agreed to those interviews but not

 3     one intercept was shown to him, nor was he asked about them.

 4             So it is the right of any accused to remain silent.  So I have

 5     nothing else to add.

 6             Thank you very much.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  We move on.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC:  Okay.

 9             [Interpretation] Can I start, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:

13        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Zepinic.

14        A.   Good morning.

15        Q.   I'm Slobodan Cvijetic, and I am a member of the Defence team of

16     Mr. Mico Stanisic.

17             Now it is my turn to ask some questions.  Well, some is an

18     understatement; there are going to be quite a few.  But before I start

19     asking questions --

20             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, before you hit your stride, we have

21     been informed by the Registry that we can sit until 5.30 today.  So we

22     would resume -- at 1.45, we would resume at 2.30 with a view to sitting

23     until 5.30 with a suitable break somewhere in between that.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

25        Q.   Well, before I start asking you questions, I will just ask you,

Page 5905

 1     since we speak the same language, to follow the transcript, and once my

 2     question is recorded, start giving your answer.  I know you speak

 3     English.  I hope that you understand what I said.

 4        A.   I will try to comply with your request, as best I can.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Let me first return to that part of the

 6     examination-in-chief that took place on Thursday and Friday, in order to

 7     clarify some things and thus enable the Chamber to understand how such an

 8     important part of the public administration as the MUP functioned.

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can I please ask the Registrar to

10     show the -- to show Exhibit P875 to the witness.  That is, to put it up

11     on the screen.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Could the Registry please inquire what this is.

13                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

14                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we please enlarge the upper

16     part, showing the first three persons, or the three highest ranking

17     persons.  All right, I believe that this will do.  Thank you.

18        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, here you see the organisational structure of the

19     MUP, and we can see what it looks like.  At the head of the ministry

20     there is the minister, Mr. Delimustafic, followed by yourself and

21     Mr. Mico Stanisic to the left and the right respectively.

22             This is the moment when Mr. Stanisic was an advisor to the

23     minister for national security.  That I believe was the exact official

24     title that will he had.

25        A.   I'm not sure whether that's the exact name, but, yes, he was an

Page 5906

 1     advisor.

 2        Q.   All right.  In this hierarchy of the MUP, you will agree with me

 3     when I say that, if Mr. Delimustafic was the number one man, you would

 4     have been the number two man?

 5        A.   Well, yes, that's what follows.

 6        Q.   But then you will agree that Mr. Stanisic, at least graphically,

 7     shouldn't be at the same level with you, because in the MUP hierarchy

 8     there is no vertical line down from him in the hierarchy and in the

 9     command of the MUP?

10        A.   I don't know who made this schematic.  Apart from Mr. Stanisic

11     there were two more advisors in the MUP.  It wasn't just Mr. Stanisic.

12        Q.   But have you listened to my question?  But do you agree with what

13     I said, what I put to you?

14        A.   What did you say?

15        Q.   That, in the MUP hierarchy, Mr. Stanisic, as an advisor, doesn't

16     have a vertical line down from his position, so he doesn't -- he doesn't

17     have subordinates in the MUP.

18        A.   Yes, I agree.

19        Q.   All right, you agree.

20             Let me put it this way.  His position and his authority starts

21     and ends inside the minister's office.  Basically the minister and him

22     depend on each other.

23        A.   Well, the minister depends on both of us.

24        Q.   But you agree, basically, with the rest of what I said.  He is in

25     the minister's office?

Page 5907

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Well, speaking about which, can you please state the names of the

 3     other advisors.

 4        A.   Milan Krizanovic, but now, frankly I can't remember the name of

 5     the financial advisor.

 6        Q.   All right.  I believe that we have explained this, and you will

 7     agree that possibly in this schematic, his position should probably have

 8     been depicted differently?

 9        A.   No, I don't agree with that statement.  I think that

10     Mr. Stanisic's position should not have been depicted here at all.

11        Q.   Yes, because it's specific.  He was an advisor in the minister's

12     office.

13        A.   Exactly.

14        Q.   That's what I was trying to say.  The point is that he is absent

15     from the organisational structure of the MUP, and obviously we agree

16     about that.  Thank you.

17             My next question follows from -- follows up on some of your

18     answers provided to the OTP.  And before I put that question to you, I'll

19     ask the usher to hand this binder to you.  The -- this is evidence I'm

20     about to show you, so you'll have hard copies, and we don't have to look

21     at the screens.

22             Please go directly to tab 2 in the binder.

23        A.   Excuse me, what about this?

24        Q.   We'll use that later.  Just put it down for the time being.  It

25     isn't numbered.

Page 5908

 1             MR. CVIJETIC:  1D011054 is the reference for the Chamber.

 2             While the Registrar is looking for that, I'll just say that is

 3     the Law on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It's the expurged version.

 5             Am I being signalled that it is time for a break?

 6             Right, Mr. Zepinic, we'll break off here and continue right where

 7     we broke off.

 8                           [The witness stands down]

 9                           --- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 12.29 p.m.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  I hope Ms. Korner is not proofing the witness.

13             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm sorry, I was distracted by

14     something that happened outside court.

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, please proceed continue.

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  Let's

18     just wait for the witness to get ready.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Go ahead, Mr. Cvijetic.

20             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Let us now try to clarify another topic, namely, the position to

22     which Mr. Stanisic was appointed and you signed the decision, you said,

23     while he was at the city secretariat of the interior of Sarajevo.

24             In your statement, that is in one sentence, that you uttered in

25     replying to a question, you mentioned two positions of his.  You said

Page 5909

 1     that he was the chief of the CSB or -- and then you say he was the chief

 2     of the city SUP.

 3             So let me ask you now to go to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the law

 4     you have in front of you.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] In the English version, I believe

 6     that's on page 7.  In the B/C/S version, it's Article 26, paragraph 2.  I

 7     hope both versions are aligned or -- well, these are both the B/C/S

 8     versions.  Let us display the English version for the Chamber.  All right

 9     now.

10             Let us see how the law regulates that, then we will have no

11     problems.

12             So the law distinguishes between these two organisational forms.

13     One is the CSB of Sarajevo; that is one thing.  And the other thing is

14     the secretariat of the interior of the city of Sarajevo.  Is that

15     correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   So let us try and distinguish this from now on.  So Mr. Stanisic

18     was the secretary of the secretariat of the interior of the city of

19     Sarajevo.  Isn't that correct?  And that's what the decision you signed

20     reads?

21        A.   I don't know what the decision reads.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  We can't hear the answer of the witness because

23     of the background noise produced by Mr. Cvijetic with shuffling through

24     the binder.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, the interpreters are having difficulty

Page 5910

 1     from the background noise from your papers.  So if you could -- yes.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I did not switch off the

 3     microphone.  We'll find the decision so we know what the law stipulates.

 4        Q.   And let's now find your decision under which number it can be

 5     found.  We put it back on the screen too.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] P888 is the exhibit number.

 7        Q.   And in your binder, Mr. Zepinic, It's number 56.  At the very

 8     end.  I believe we'll come to terms about that very soon.  Once read your

 9     own decision, please read out what the decision is called.

10        A.   Secretary to the SUP of Sarajevo.

11        Q.   Am I right?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   Go ahead.

14        A.   You must distinguish the secretary to the SUP of the city of

15     Sarajevo and the secretary of the --

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Can you please repeat.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We must distinguish the chief of

19     the CSB of Banja Luka from the secretary of the SUP of the city of

20     Banja Luka.  Likewise, we must distinguish between the chief of the SUP

21     of Sarajevo, which covers also Romanija, and the city SUP of Sarajevo.

22             If you ask me who the secretary in the city SUP of Sarajevo was,

23     I don't know.

24        Q.   Then I will read out to you the names of persons in the

25     respective positions.

Page 5911

 1             The chief of the CSB of Sarajevo was Kemo Sabovic.  And

 2     Mr. Stanisic was secretary -- at the secretariat of the interior of

 3     Sarajevo as an organisational unit of the SJB -- sorry, CSB, and in line

 4     with the law.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Do we agree now?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Then we are saying things that aren't provided for by the law.

 9             I'll put the following to you.  This may explain the situation.

10             Before Mr. Stanisic, Mr. Zeljko Iljic was in that position, and

11     after him there was Mr. Kijac [phoen]?

12        A.   You know, sir, can you not expect me to remember all the names

13     and all positions of the MUP and when Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Kemo Sabovic

14     replaced somebody else.

15        Q.   Well, I had expected that we would clarify this, but the Chamber

16     will interpret the regulations because in the regulations I can see two

17     organisational structures and two persons in two different positions.

18     But if you cannot help us, let's proceed.

19             Do tell me now that we're speaking about the SUP of Sarajevo or,

20     as you say, the city of Sarajevo, tell us, within whose purview was

21     securing large gatherings, political order, such as the Assembly of

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina, party rallies or conferences, et cetera?

23        A.   That was in the purview of the Ministry of the Interior, and the

24     ministry decided in accordance with its regulations that the chief of the

25     municipal secretariats to provide security for the facilities in

Page 5912

 1     question.

 2        Q.   Do you remember that on the occasion with some incident involving

 3     Mrs. Ostojic an order to the city SUP followed to provide security to

 4     some personalities from political life such as Mr. Izetbegovic,

 5     Mr. Karadzic, et cetera.

 6             Do you remember that may have been your order?

 7        A.   Possibly.  I cannot be sure whether it was or wasn't.  But it was

 8     certainly an order that was passed on from the ministry to our

 9     subordinate structures to carry out some tasks that involved providing

10     security to facilities and persons.

11        Q.   Let's call that lower organisational level the city SUP.

12        A.   Or to police stations in the city of Sarajevo.

13        Q.   All right.  Let us move on to the third topic.  So we're still

14     dealing with the same law.

15             So if you wouldn't mind, let's look at Article 36 and Article 37.

16     Let me see where that is in the English translation.  It's the same

17     document.  Or, actually, you're right, we must return to 1D011054.  That

18     is the law.  I apologise.  I forgot that I called up another exhibit.

19             All right.  In the English version, this is on pages 10 and 11,

20     and in the B/C/S version the Articles are 36 and 37.  I believe that this

21     is it in both linguistic versions, but possibly they should be enlarged.

22             If you don't mind, Mr. Zepinic, do read these two Articles but

23     you may know them anyway.

24        A.   Which Articles?

25        Q.   36 and 37.  The law stipulates two types of units you spoke

Page 5913

 1     about.  With other professionals from your line of business, we discussed

 2     this and checked it.  So -- and we found out that Article 36 covers the

 3     Special Police brigade.  Do you agree with me?

 4        A.   "Because the nature of the duties and tasks under Article 33,

 5     appropriate police units shall be established for the purpose within the

 6     Republican Secretariat."

 7        Q.   Yes, that should be the spot.

 8             So does this cover the special brigade?

 9        A.   No.  This refers to any police unit, including traffic police,

10     but also unit providing security to persons and facilities including

11     Special Police.

12        Q.   Very well.  Article 37 states that so-called PJP, that is special

13     units, ad hoc units, can be established.  Is that correct?

14        A.   Yes, that was a possibility for -- for establishing such units in

15     case of need.

16        Q.   And the essence of my question, and you can see that in the law

17     also, that it was the exclusive right of the minister to establish such

18     units and appoint their commanders.

19        A.   No.  This reads the Republican Secretary.  That's not the same

20     thing.

21        Q.   Very well.  You are right; it says the Republican Secretary,

22     because this is the old law in which the old terminology can be found.

23             Mr. Zepinic, can you find where the law refers to any other type

24     of unit or any other person with the authority to establish such a type

25     of police units, in the law?

Page 5914

 1        A.   To answer this question, I would have to be a lawyer, which I'm

 2     not.  And, secondly, you should have given me the document in advance for

 3     me to read it through thoroughly and familiarise myself with it.  But if

 4     the Chamber wants me to do so, I can read this for a couple of hours and

 5     then I will be able to answer such questions.

 6        Q.   Let's go on.  We'll call specialists for laws and regulations who

 7     can then interpret this for us.

 8             The next thing I wanted to deal with is the relationship that

 9     existed between the MUP and the Presidency, or the cabinet respectively.

10     In a situation of the imminent threat of war or in a state of war, can

11     you tell me what the respective strengths of the Presidency or the

12     cabinet were in relation to the MUP?

13        A.   You mean who was number one and who was number two?

14        Q.   Yes.

15        A.   Well, number one is the Presidency, and number two is the

16     cabinet.

17        Q.   It seems to me that the Presidency could even directly speak to

18     the minister.

19        A.   [In English] Translation is not correct.  The number one is

20     Presidency, and number two is the cabinet.  I would say government.

21             [No interpretation]

22             [In English] I'm sorry for intervention.

23        Q.   All right.  The Presidency, in some cases, had the right to deal

24     directly with the minister with -- about security-related issues?

25        A.   [Interpretation] Correct.

Page 5915

 1        Q.   Let me now move on to a question that was put to you, and when

 2     you spoke about the rhetoric of ethnic leaders or leaders of ethnically

 3     based parties.  To be more specific it was a question of the rhetoric

 4     used by Mr. Karadzic?

 5             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Cvijetic, just one moment, please, something

 6     wrong with the record.  What is said after the intervention of the

 7     witness, because what he said was not correct.  Is exactly the same as

 8     what he said before.  Well, number one is the Presidency, and number two

 9     is the cabinet.  And then the witness says, No, that is not correct.  And

10     now re-read the number one is the Presidency, and the number two is the

11     cabinet.  It is exactly the same.

12             So let's -- let's have that right of what the witness wants --

13     the difference with.

14             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour, you're right.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  If I may be of assistance, I believe the witness

16     was having -- taking an issue with the interpretation of he said Vlada,

17     and it was interpreted as cabinet, and he said government.  But cabinet

18     and government are basically the same thing.  That's -- that was the

19     intervention as I -- I understand stood the witness to be.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the judge, please.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but that is not the

22     same thing.  Sorry, Mr. Zecevic, it's not the same.

23             [In English] Cabinets or prime minister is something different

24     than the government.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So you meant --

Page 5916

 1             THE WITNESS:  I would say -- sorry for intervention again.  I

 2     would say number one was the Presidency, and number two was the

 3     government.

 4             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Thank you.  Thank you.

 5             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Very well.  That was the essence of the question, and I don't

 7     want to go into terminological issues such as cabinet or government.

 8             You -- we spoke about the rhetoric of ethnic leaders, the

 9     specific question asked of you was about the rhetoric of Mr. Karadzic.

10             You will agree with me, won't you, Mr. Zepinic, that such

11     nationalist rhetoric was also used by the leaders of other

12     ethnically-based parties, namely the SDA, and the HDZ.  Am I right,

13     especially in the election campaign?

14        A.   If you listen to me attentively on Thursday and Friday, I said

15     that this applies to all ethnic leaders.  Specifically this was about

16     Dr. Karadzic, but the language used didn't differ when it comes to other

17     ethnic leaders either.  They swore less frequently.

18        Q.   You will agree with me when I say that, with this

19     ethnically-centred or nationalist rhetoric Mr. Izetbegovic, at least

20     officially, started with the Islamic declaration but which you, as a

21     police officer, certainly know.

22        A.   Yes, the Islamic declaration is something I know from the time

23     when Mr. Izetbegovic was sentenced for nationalism.

24        Q.   Yes.  It has been admitted into evidence already, and I won't

25     quote that declaration anymore because historians have already commented

Page 5917

 1     it.

 2             But let me ask you whether you, as a police officer, know that it

 3     was reprinted at the beginning of the election campaign in 1990, that it

 4     was part of the party programme of the SDA?

 5        A.   I must correct you, I'm not a police officer.  And secondly, if

 6     you ask me about the first printing of the Islamic declaration, then I

 7     can say that it was printed in Belgrade for the campaign of

 8     Mr. Izetbegovic which was micro-nationalism.  Mr. Seselj and Mr. Cosic

 9     were the greatest opponents to the Prosecution of Mr. Izetbegovic.

10             THE WITNESS: [In English] Give me an opportunity to explain,

11     because the question is regarding second publishing Islamic declaration

12     written by Mr. Izetbegovic.  I have no recollection, and I have no

13     evidence about such declaration being published or not.  It wasn't my

14     job.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   But you have, actually, answered my question.  Just please focus

17     on what I ask you.

18             Can you agree with me when I say that the Croats, too, had their

19     nationalist rhetoric and that they put that into practice by establishing

20     the HZHB?

21        A.   I cannot agree with you for one reason.  You're mentioning a

22     Herzegovinian Croatian party established by Mr. Mate Boban, if I remember

23     will, in March 1990.  That party or that entity was part of the Croatian

24     Democratic Union from Zagreb.  That department, probably reinforced by

25     the efforts of Mr. Susak and others from the Western Herzegovina, in

Page 5918

 1     August 1990 it changed its name to Croatian Democratic Union, and for

 2     Bosnia and Herzegovina, and its president elected was Dr. Davor

 3     Petrinovic.

 4        Q.   All right.  I would then show you the document relating to the

 5     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna when we get there.

 6             Let me first show you a video-clip that was used in

 7     examination-in-chief the exhibit number is 1D108, if I'm not mistaken.

 8             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, I'm sorry, I made a mistake.

10     I think it has a 65 ter number.

11             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] It's the Death of

12     Yugoslavia.  It's -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We found it.  P907.

14        Q.   Please pay attention to the uniformed persons, the persons in

15     uniform that will appear there.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             THE NARRATOR:  "But he didn't know it would start from his own

18     side.  It happened as the guests arrived at a Serb wedding.  A Muslim

19     killed the father of the groom.  That night, Serbs hit back.

20             THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] Hands up.  Come here.

21             THE NARRATOR:  "The gunmen erected armed barricades all over the

22     Bosnian capital.

23             THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] It's just a chisel, mate.  The

24     Serbs of Sarajevo demand, number one, that the Bosnian government

25     unconditionally put an end to all efforts seeking international

Page 5919

 1     recognition."

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Now, stop it here, please.

 4             Can you recognise who this is?

 5        A.   I don't remember the face, but this is a paramilitary belonging

 6     to the SDA.

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's go on.

 8                           [Video-clip played]

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   And now?

11        A.   If you're asking me about the persons, I cannot identify them.  I

12     can't.  I really cannot.

13                           [Video-clip played]

14             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We'll stop it here.

15        Q.   As a police officer, did you have a chance to meet Juka Prazina?

16        A.   No, I have never met Juka Prazina in my life.  It is it another

17     story that he incarcerated me when the war started, but I never met him

18     in person.

19        Q.   But did you meet him when he incarcerated you?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   All right.  Then our argument that one of the persons seen in the

22     video is him cannot be confirmed by you.

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   But what can you tell us about him?  Who is he?  What was he?

25        A.   He was a pre-war criminal, who, very soon, became the commander

Page 5920

 1     of paramilitary units in Sarajevo, and, as far as I know, he was one of

 2     the first to be appointed general in the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And

 3     he gathered around him a company of criminals.  They divided the town

 4     among them, and within three days they very efficiently robbed all food

 5     in Sarajevo and stores, cars.  They even stole a -- the chair from a

 6     friend -- a friend of mine's barbershop in Sarajevo.  So they went about

 7     robbing and looting.

 8        Q.   Did you know that under his control one of the unofficial prisons

 9     were founded?

10        A.   I don't know whether that prison was under the control of

11     Juka Prazina.  But I know that there were a number of private prisons

12     around Sarajevo and that anybody and their uncle could open them, and

13     they did.  And those prisons were not only for the Serbs but also for

14     those who did not agree with the concept of crimes that were launched

15     immediately after -- at the outbreak of war.

16        Q.   Very well.  As we're talking about the barricades, the footage

17     started with the incident involving the murder of two members of a

18     Serbian wedding party.

19             As far as I know, the perpetrators were immediately identified,

20     arrested, and immediately released.  Is that correct?

21        A.   No, it is not correct that they were immediately released.  The

22     Ministry of the Interior identified the perpetrators, it arrested them,

23     they were remanded into custody for as long as they could be remanded, as

24     can be confirmed by Messrs. Zupljanin and Stanisic.  We were only allowed

25     to keep them for three days, and we sent the criminal report to the

Page 5921

 1     Prosecutor's office for Bosnia-Herzegovina for further proceedings.

 2             I don't know why Mr. Kovac, who was the public Prosecutor at the

 3     time, rejected our report.  You should ask him.  As far as the security

 4     services, everything was done professionally and under the law.  When it

 5     came to the perpetrators of those murders, they were indeed brought in

 6     and kept for as long as we could keep them.

 7        Q.   Is it true that during the interviews they said that they had

 8     done what they did and pursuant to the instructions from the office of

 9     Mr. Izetbegovic?

10        A.   I was informed about that by the investigators that Mr. Delic,

11     also known as Celo, who was one of the persons who had stated that the

12     order arrived from the office of Mr. Izetbegovic and the -- he followed

13     that order.

14        Q.   And now just one more question before I move on, a question of --

15     with regard to the incidents that happened during that time.

16             Just briefly, do you know anything about the attacks against the

17     army, and did you personally intervene in some situations?  And I mean

18     Grude and other such instances.  Just briefly.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Who were the perpetrators of those attacks.

21        A.   The attacks were perpetrated against the column of military

22     vehicles, and it was carried out by paramilitary units and paramilitaries

23     in certain locations and areas.  That happened in the Neretva Valley

24     predominantly.

25        Q.   Very well.  Who were those paramilitaries?

Page 5922

 1        A.   Those paramilitaries were composed of various criminal groups,

 2     similar to Mr. Milinkovic in the Banja Luka region.  And if you're asking

 3     me, their main purpose was not ethnically based.

 4             They were primarily criminals, and they used every opportunity to

 5     tip the security situation in the area by launching attacks against

 6     military facilities, police stations, not only in western Herzegovina but

 7     all over Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 8        Q.   The crime in Sijekovac dates back to that very early period.  Is

 9     it true that the Special Police brigade returned from that area or

10     ordered to return from that area and that the Croats did not allow them

11     to intervene?

12        A.   Mr. Cvijetic, that's not true.  I did not allow the

13     Special Police unit to go in and intervene in Sijekovac for a simple

14     reason.  At the previous government session we had considered the

15     possibility.  I apologise, it was an extended session of the Presidency

16     and the government.  There was a request for the Special Police units to

17     intervene and to take over the role of a buffer zone.  I will tell you

18     what I replied to Mr. Izetbegovic on that occasion.  I told him that

19     every buffer, once it returns, is stained with blood.  I believe that the

20     situation in Sijekovac had to be dealt with in political ways and not by

21     way of the intervention launched by a Special Police unit.

22        Q.   And now just a very brief question.  Who perpetrated the crime?

23        A.   What crime?

24        Q.   The crime in Sijekovac?

25        A.   As far as I know, it with a was a group led by --

Page 5923

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  It is it impossible to hear the witness because

 2     of the shuffling of the papers coming from the counsel.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, please remember to turn off your

 4     microphone because they are picking up your papers.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat the name of the

 6     leader of the paramilitary group.

 7             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zepinic, what was the name of the leader of

 8     the paramilitary group that you just mentioned?

 9             THE WITNESS:  I think, Your Honour, it was Armin Pohara.  I know

10     his name, because he was a president of Green Party.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Cvijetic please switch off his

12     microphone.  Thank you.

13             THE WITNESS:  [Previous translation continues]... in early 1990s.

14             [Interpretation] At the time when his deputy was Dr. Karadzic.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  [Microphone not activated] Thank you.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Which units he belonged to when he carried out attack on

18     Sijekovac?

19        A.   I can't tell you.  I don't know.  I know that the ministry

20     established a commission to carry out an investigation with regard to

21     that murder and the massacre.  Not only murders but a veritable massacre

22     committed against the civilian population of Sijekovac.

23             As far as I know, I apologise if I'm mistaken, I believe that a

24     police officer also got killed in at that attack.

25        Q.   Very well.  Let us move on to the following document.

Page 5924

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let me just see whether it already

 2     has a number.  The document is P885.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   In your tab it is document under -- in your binder, it is

 6     document under tab 57.

 7        A.   Thank you.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel.

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   You've already seen the document.  You saw it during the

11     examination-in-chief.  It is an intercept of a conversation.  Could you

12     please look at page 3 in the B/C/S version.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's try and locate the

14     corresponding English page.  We need page 4 in B/C/S.  The following page

15     in B/C/S, please.

16        Q.   Very well.  Let's just see -- this is a text.  Look at the lower

17     part where Mr. Karadzic says:

18             "I spoke to them, and I calmed them down."

19             And now I need a corresponding section in the English version.  I

20     believe it is on page 5; isn't that correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Can you see that?  The document has already been shown to you, as

23     I have already said.  And you said, on the 28th of January, on page 573,

24     you put this conversation in a context, and you identified the voice of

25     Mico Stanisic.

Page 5925

 1             Could you please read both paragraphs?

 2        A.   I have to correct you.  You have to look carefully, to see

 3     whether I indeed said that I had recognised Mr. Stanisic or I said that I

 4     assumed that it could be Mr. Stanisic.  We're talking about two entirely

 5     different things.  He does mention a Mico.  I don't know which Mico is in

 6     question.  I didn't state that for a fact, so check that.

 7        Q.   Did you read what it says here?

 8        A.   Yes, I did.

 9        Q.   That's why I'm asking because you said that you allow for the

10     possibility that that was indeed Mr. Stanisic.  However, let's just agree

11     on one thing.  It transpired from the second part of Karadzic's

12     conversation with yourself that the person was an MP in the assembly who

13     was also a member of the council of municipalities, and if he was removed

14     somebody else would be given his position, and so on and so forth.

15        A.   I repeat, I don't know whether that person was indeed

16     Mico Stanisic or somebody else.  And I have already stated that several

17     times.  I don't know whether Stanisic was a member of the SDS party at

18     the time, and whether he was an MP in the Serbian Democratic Party.

19             MS. KORNER:  It was put to him that he identified the voice of

20     Stanisic; no, he didn't.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Not correct, not correct,

22     Your Honours.  I'm putting it to the witness that, based on the nickname

23     Mico he allowed for the possibility that that person was indeed

24     Mico Stanisic.  We never heard the voice of the alleged Mico.

25             MS. KORNER:  I appreciate that.  In the question he put at page

Page 5926

 1     78, something -- the line has gone up now.  He said:  "You identified the

 2     voice of Mr. Stanisic."

 3             No, he didn't.  78, line 19.  Thank you.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm sure that the

 5     interpretation was wrong.  I didn't use the term "voice."  We never

 6     listened to the recording; there is no way I could have used the word

 7     "voice."

 8        Q.   You will agree with me, therefore, that identification based on

 9     nicknames is something that one has to be cautious about.

10        A.   That's what I stated.  It was just my assumption.  It was not a

11     definite identification of Mr. Mico Stanisic.

12        Q.   Thank you very much.  Let's move on to a different topic.

13             But before I do that, you asked me about a document that is

14     separate in the first group of documents.  And let me ask you this.

15     Namely, this is 1D108, when you were talking about -- let's just see it

16     on the screen.  And can we immediately move to the second page in the

17     B/C/S version, which is immediately after the page that is now on the

18     screen.

19             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to page 2 immediately.

20     Thank you very much.

21        Q.   And I assume that it would be the second page in the English

22     version.  But if not, then we'll manage with what we have.

23             The bottom part says that the Presidency established a

24     Crisis Staff.  I believe that ... yes, now we have the correct pages.

25     You were telling us about your attempts to intervene with regard to the

Page 5927

 1     barricades, and you claimed -- and you told us who had you called with

 2     this regard, and they referred to Mr. Ejub Ganic, and they told you about

 3     him, that he was in charge on behalf of the Presidency of such

 4     situations, if I understood you probably?

 5        A.   Yes, you did.

 6        Q.   Please read the paragraph starting with the words:  "The

 7     Presidency establishes a Crisis Staff ..."

 8        A.   I'm familiar with that.

 9        Q.   Slow down, please.  The question is this:  Do you know that

10     Mr. Ganic was, as it says here, the coordinator on behalf of the

11     Crisis Staff of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina for this kind of situations?  Let's see if your answer

13     has been recorded.

14             And the question -- now your answer has not been recorded.  Could

15     you please repeat your answer.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  The answer could not be heard because the

17     speakers were overlapping again.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Zepinic, we never heard your answer to the

19     question that was put to you.  Did you know about Ganic's role?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was aware of the fact that

21     Mr. Ganic had a been appointed as the coordinator on behalf of the

22     Crisis Staff of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Thank you, sir.  And

24     again to both counsels, please be careful not to overlap.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

Page 5928

 1        Q.   My question with this regard is as follows.  Your attempts to

 2     find him that day failed, although he was supposedly in charge of such

 3     situations.

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   Very well.  And now I would like to move on to a different topic,

 6     the one that started your examination-in-chief.  Let's first go to a

 7     regulation.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I have just been suggested to ask

 9     you what day was it when you were looking for him, the day when the

10     barricades were erected.

11        A.   Yes, I was looking for him on the day when the barricades had

12     been erected, but I failed.  He arrived at the Presidency on the

13     following day, and at my proposal he was removed as the coordinator on

14     behalf of the Crisis Staff of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  [Microphone not activated] Mr. Cvijetic, can you

17     explain to us the relevance of this.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am dealing with

19     the topics raised during the examination-in-chief.

20             During the examination-in-chief, he took some time talking about

21     the barricades and his roles in dealing with the situation, and he also

22     told us who he had called and what the reactions were on behalf of those

23     who he had called.  And within that context, he said that he was also

24     referred to Mr. Ganic and that Mr. Ganic played a certain role when it

25     came to dealing with such situations.  I only showed him a document and

Page 5929

 1     asked him to confirm that that was, indeed, the case.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But he did confirm that during his

 3     examination-in-chief, did he not?

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  But he did not confirm nor

 5     was he ever asked what his official role had been, and I established that

 6     through this document, and the witness confirmed what the role of

 7     Mr. Ganic was.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yeah, exactly.

10             Mr. Cvijetic, how is that relevant?

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It was the Crisis Staff of the

12     Presidency, which dates back to September 1991, Your Honours.  And the

13     main task of the coordinator of that Crisis Staff was what the witness

14     was talking about at great length.  And that Crisis Staff and that

15     coordinator did not deliver, they did not perform their duty, as has been

16     confirmed by the witness.  And which complements our thesis that

17     Crisis Staffs existed and functioned even before the Serbian Democratic

18     Party established them.

19             MS. KORNER:  I think there is a misunderstanding here.  This was

20     a discussion about the SDS Crisis Staff on the barricades.  Nothing to do

21     with whatever Mr. Cvijetic thinks it was, in-chief anyhow.

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is up to you be

23     the judge of that.  We have our own thesis, and we want to support it

24     because we believe that it is relevant to establish when Crisis Staffs

25     were first established as organisations and forms of functioning.  We

Page 5930

 1     have proved that they existed in September 1991 and witness confirmed

 2     their existence, and he also shed light on the function and role of

 3     Mr. Ejub Ganic at the time.  And this is exactly what we have done.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I would appreciate if you simply could put the

 5     questions relating to these matters to the witness head on.

 6             But, in any case, let's move on.

 7             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

 8        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, let's first see this piece of regulation, 1D004042.

 9     This is a Law on General People's Defence [as interpreted], which is a

10     topic which you already discussed in the examination-in-chief.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we have page 61 in the

12     English version of the document.

13        Q.   And in your binder, sir, it will be under tab 3.

14             MR. ZECEVIC:  Just an intervention of transcript, Your Honours.

15     83, line 17, it is All People's Defence.  I believe that is what

16     Mr. Cvijetic's ...

17             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   In the Serbian version, we are on Article 91, and the English

19     version we are on page 61.  We're looking for Article 91.

20             What matters is to have the English version, and the two of us

21     speak Serbian so we can make do.

22             Can you please open your B/C/S version on page 3 where you will

23     find Article 91 -- or, rather, the document is under tab 3.  Look for

24     Article 91.  Do you have it?  Have you got it?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 5931

 1        Q.   Yes.  We're dealing with armed forces:

 2             "The armed force make up a single entity and are comprised of a

 3     Yugoslav People's Army and the Territorial Defence."

 4             Would you agree with me that this is the shortest possible and

 5     the simplest definition of the armed forces within the system of All

 6     People's Defence; is that correct?

 7        A.   I'm not a legal expert, so I can't say either yes or no.  This is

 8     the 1982 law, as far as I know.  I don't know whether there were any

 9     amendments or new laws after that, I wouldn't know.

10        Q.   We're dealing with the federal law which was applied in

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Can we agree on that?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   You will agree with me, won't you, that in the legal definition

14     of the armed forces, the police or the Ministry of the Interior does not

15     feature as an integral part of the armed forces; is that correct?

16        A.   Yes, yes, you're right, yes, I agree with you.  I apologise.

17        Q.   And now let's move to page 67 in the English version.

18             And for you, sir, could you please turn your pages to

19     Article 104.  104.

20             Do you see this Article 104, in it does envisage a possibility to

21     engage police forces in combat.  But if that the case, the police forces

22     are resubordinated to the military commander to whose area they are

23     deployed.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   You have already explained to us -- that to us during your

Page 5932

 1     examination-in-chief.  This means that the competent commander of a corps

 2     can issue a written order or a -- an oral order in threat of war and ask

 3     for a certain number of police officers to be placed at his disposal.  Is

 4     that correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   At the moment when they arrive in the area of his responsibility,

 7     their official competencies of civilian police officers are abolished.

 8     They become part of the military bodies.  They are resubordinated to a

 9     military commander, and they are held responsible just like any other

10     member of the military.

11             Am I right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And if that happens your authority over them ceases to exist?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   You have to say no.

16             Could you please repeat your answer?  And let me repeat my

17     question.  Do you still have any authority over that group of policemen

18     in a situation like that?

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   In such a situation --

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I think we have been through this a number of

22     times, Mr. Cvijetic.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will then continue

24     with my following question, because the witness was asked about the

25     circumstances in the examination-in-chief.  Let me just verify that,

Page 5933

 1     nothing more.  Here is a high-ranking police officer, Your Honours, we

 2     will not have the opportunity or indeed the need to ask anybody of a

 3     lower rank.

 4        Q.   So my final question about this Article --

 5        A.   [In English] I have just one intervention, sorry.  "Here is a

 6     high-ranking police officer."  I told you already I wasn't police

 7     officer, Mr. Cvijetic.

 8        Q.   Okay.  So if in such a situation when they are resubordinated,

 9     I'm speaking about former civilian police officers, if they commit a war

10     crime or any crime, they are then prosecuted before a military tribunal.

11     Is that correct?

12        A.   [Interpretation] Yes.

13        Q.   Now your answer has been recorded.  It's okay.

14             Why have I brought up this law?

15             On pages 114 and 115 of the English version, more specifically,

16     Article 207 ...

17                           [Defence counsel confer]

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 114, 115, so the Article is 207.

19        Q.   Have you read Article 207 in the meantime, sir?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   You know this from the system, Mr. Zepinic.  It stipulates that

22     all -- everybody in the country is obliged to make -- to prepare for

23     defence, make plans and even establish staffs, et cetera.

24             These preparations comprised all institutions in the state,

25     including the MUP.  Is that correct?

Page 5934

 1        A.   Based on the 1982 act, yes, that is correct.

 2        Q.   Then I will show you some documents signed by you to check their

 3     authenticity.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see documents

 5     1D159, please.

 6        Q.   In your binder, that is number 6.

 7             Mr. Zepinic, take a look at this document.  Can you recognise one

 8     of your own documents?  Do you just confirm that this is a practical

 9     implementation of what we have just been talking about?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   Well, then tell me.

12        A.   You, Mr. Cvijetic, are trying to apply the 1982 act to the

13     newly-created circumstances after the multi-party elections held in 1990.

14             This law that you have placed in front of me was passed in a

15     country with a single-party system which was ruled by the League of

16     Communists.  At the time when I was in authority, there was a coalition

17     of ethnic parties, based on the decision of the Assemblies of

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, taken in

19     January 1991, that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, political pluralism should be

20     developed.

21        Q.   Just a minute.

22        A.   Let me finish.

23        Q.   But my sweep wasn't so broad.

24        A.   [In English] Mr. Cvijetic.  Your Honour.  Because you are trying

25     to implement in something what is totally inadequate regarding document

Page 5935

 1     in time when we had totally different political situation than on time

 2     that political party formed government, Presidency, and cabinet.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, if it's your permission, I will

 4     explain further.  You asking me here about organisation.  Of military

 5     organisation -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...

 7     Mr. Zepinic, please.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ... [No interpretation]

 9             [Interpretation] You're asking me about the conditions in an

10     imminent threat of war, a state of war, in a crisis, and I ask you who in

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina decided that there was an imminent threat of war.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Just one question.  Is this your document?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   All right.  Now that you are unwilling to comment it, it has been

16     exhibited already.  Let's continue.

17             Do you recognise the following document, document number 7 --

18     well, but let's not go into this.

19             Let me just, by way of finishing, ask you in general about the

20     situation.  The defence preparations of the organs of the -- in the

21     interior also include drafting plans, the establishing of staffs, but

22     exclusively for the carrying out of police duties in the newly arisen,

23     more difficult conditions.

24        A.   Correct.

25        Q.   Well, then I don't know what are we disagreeing about.

Page 5936

 1        A.   We disagree about the fact that nobody ever proclaimed the state

 2     of crisis or imminent threat of war or the state of war in

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 4        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, I'm referring to the obligation that even in peace

 5     such preparations must be conducted.  Am I right?

 6        A.   Yes, you're right there.

 7        Q.   You will agree with me when I say that, to that end, and because

 8     of the expected worsening of the security situation and operational staff

 9     can be established that will assist the minister in the implementation of

10     his task in these new aggravated the circumstances.

11        A.   I cannot reply with any degree of certainty that was indeed the

12     case.  But the ministry or -- minister or his office were duty-bound to

13     establish a team that would vouch, say, the functioning of the Ministry

14     of the Interior.

15        Q.   You said team or staff; right?

16        A.   I'm not sure.  Well, we can use such or terms or other.

17        Q.   To confirm what we were saying, let us see document 1D030526.

18             And you can find it at number 13.

19             Let us just wait for the English version to appear.  This is a

20     document which wasn't signed by you but, rather, Mr. Avdo Hebib as the

21     commander or the head of the staff.  And he informs the other units that

22     such an operation staff has been established.  Is this a confirmation of

23     what we have just spoken about?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender

Page 5937

 1     this document into evidence.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  For what purpose exactly, Mr. Cvijetic?

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This document confirms the

 4     conversation and the topic Mr. Zepinic and I discussed about the

 5     existence of an operational staff within the Ministry of the Interior in

 6     extraordinary circumstances, or in a crisis.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, but we disagree.  The

 8     staff was established because the security situation had worsened.

 9             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Very well.  Okay.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The witness has identified the

12     document, and I believe it is relevant.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me just remind you of the date

14     of the document.  It is dated 6 April 1992.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Well, yes, that is what it says.

17        A.   Your witness resigned a few days earlier.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, I suppose this document could be

20     admitted.  But wouldn't we just be adding paper?

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  We haven't had

22     any document of this type so far, but I believe it is relevant for the

23     positions of the Defence.  It is relevant for us, and I believe it can

24     assist the Trial Chamber to clarify some issues.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 5938

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, as usual, we're not trying to

 2     prevent you from tendering evidence to us.  On the contrary.  But we need

 3     have to have a clear understanding of just how this will assist the

 4     Defence case, and thereby how it is relevant to this Trial Chamber.  And

 5     I'm not sure I understand it fully.

 6             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, then we should

 7     discuss that in the absence of the witness.  I can explain to you why it

 8     is relevant to us, but this will take some time, I am afraid.

 9             I am willing to provide you an answer but in the absence of the

10     witness.

11             JUDGE HALL:  We are just up on a break, Mr. Cvijetic.  Perhaps

12     what the -- what could happen is that the witness could be excused a

13     little ahead of us, and you could briefly explain how this is relevant.

14             Mr. Zepinic, we will be taking a break shortly, and we would

15     resume at 2.30 because we have an extended session today in order to

16     complete your testimony.  But the Court is not rising immediately so the

17     usher will escort you from the courtroom at this moment.

18             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

19                           [The witness stands down]

20                           [Defence counsel confer]

21             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, briefly, how is this relevant?

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are merely

23     opposing what the OTP put forward about the character of the order issued

24     by Mr. Stanisic.  I believe it is -- it was dated the 15th of May.  In

25     which he deals with the same topic in the same way the MUP of the

Page 5939

 1     Socialist Republic of BiH dealt with it because it is his legal

 2     obligation to do so.  And here we see that this is done at this level

 3     too.

 4             The OTP characterised this act of Mr. Stanisic in one way, and we

 5     are opposing it by claiming that this is merely a uniform application of

 6     the law, and we have shown a document to prove our point.  No more than

 7     that.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, could you assist us.  Does the

10     proposition have a view on this?

11             MS. KORNER:  For the moment I don't have faintest idea of what

12     document that Stanisic signed Mr. Cvijetic is talking about.  So if he

13     would like to give us the number, that would help.

14             I don't believe when he says, We characterised it in a way,

15     without knowing what the document is, I can't say how he characterised

16     what.  It may well be it's simply a document we put in to show the

17     progression of Mr. Stanisic.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will be brief.

19             It is Exhibit 1D46 from the 65 ter list.  It's an order issued by

20     Mr. Stanisic.  About the establishment of the staff ... 1D46.

21             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Yes.  I've had a look at

22     the document.  I don't think we characterised it in any way other than it

23     shows the operation of the Serbian MUP once there was the split.

24     Apparently it went in through -- I can't remember, one of the witnesses.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is very simple.

Page 5940

 1     A parallel should be drawn between these two documents, and you will

 2     arrive at your own conclusions.

 3             And based on this order issued by Mr. Stanisic, the OTP argues

 4     that he, thus, used police forces for wartime purposes.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  The document is admitted an marked.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit 1D177, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  And we take the break and resume at 2.30.

 9                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.51 p.m.

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11                           --- On resuming at 2.39 p.m.

12             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, please proceed continue.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14             Could we now please have document 1D030505 on the screen, please.

15        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, for your reference, it is at number -- at tab 8 in

16     the binder.  Let us just wait for it to appear on the screen.

17             Can you just confirm if this is a document issued by you?

18        A.   Probably it is.

19        Q.   My -- I apologise, did the Judge want to say anything?

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Well, I think the witness said that it was

21     probably by him, and we haven't seen the signature.  At least I haven't.

22             So ...

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us, please, scroll down to see

24     Mr. Zepinic's signature.

25        A.   I also cannot see my signature.  That's why I said probably.

Page 5941

 1        Q.   Well, please then read the content and then you will be able to

 2     make your on conclusion.

 3        A.   Yes.  Please give me a minute.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the bottom in English?

 5     But it's on the second page, all the way down.

 6             The English version seems to have one more page.  This is it.

 7        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, have you read the document?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Could it be yours?

10        A.   Yes, it could.

11        Q.   Could we just briefly comment in one sentence that it deals with

12     the manning of the wartime organisation of the MUP.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And all in the -- in the context of what we spoke about earlier.

15        A.   Yes.  But let us be precise, in the overall framework of the

16     worsened security situation in the Republic.

17        Q.   Yes, all right, I agree.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender

19     this into evidence as the witness has identified the document.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 1D178.

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.  Could we now please

23     the following document, 1D030510.

24        Q.   It's at tab 9, Mr. Zepinic.

25             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's just see the English

Page 5942

 1     version.  Please scroll all the way down so that we may see the

 2     signature.  We'll obviously have to turn the page in the English version.

 3     Please go all the way to the signature in the English version.

 4        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, you had the opportunity to read the content?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Is your answer the same?

 7        A.   Yes, there is no signature, but I fully agree with the content.

 8        Q.   You merely speak about increased measures or heightened measures?

 9        A.   It is duty shifts of executive officers.

10        Q.   All right, Mr. Zepinic.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I also seek to tender this

12     document into evidence, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic.  For this document and

14     the previous document, I'm unsure of what to make of the contents.  The

15     previous documents, if I was able to grasp the contents of it, because it

16     was just on the screen for a very short moment, and I was rushing through

17     it, that previous document seemed to suggest that the witness had

18     insisted that the ethnic composition of the organisation of the MUP in

19     wartime reflected the actual composition of the ethnic groups in the

20     country.  So that was one thing.

21             And then this document tends to do what exactly?  But for both

22     documents, I'm unsure what to make of it.  Why is it important to your

23     case to have the witness testify that he was seeking to maintain a

24     wartime organisation that reflected the ethnic organisation of the -- of

25     the population as such, rather, I suppose, than being just ethnically

Page 5943

 1     Serb, or Muslim, or Croat?

 2             What is the point you want to show?  I simply -- I'm unsure about

 3     it.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are dealing with

 5     the measures taken by the MUP under conditions of worsen -- the worsened

 6     security situation as the witness said.  It is true that this is what it

 7     says.  But it also says that the wartime organisation is being manned.

 8     And the third document I'm about to show speaks about the need to issue

 9     long-barrelled weapons to the reserve police.  So I'm referring to the

10     measures taken in this situation, based on the plans we discussed with

11     the witness.

12             So I'm not taking a single sentence out of context, I'm looking

13     at the document as a whole and placing it into the context about which we

14     are speaking with the witness.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But -- thanks, Mr. Cvijetic.  What's the story

16     that you want to tell here, or that you wouldn't to elicit from the

17     witness?  What is the understanding of the events that took place in the

18     fall of 1991 and the early months of 1992 that you want this witness to

19     give to the Chamber?

20             I'm asking because I -- I don't understand it.  I don't see it

21     clearly from the documents that you put to us.

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no other

23     explanation but the one to -- but the conclusion to which arrived at by

24     speaking with the witness.  I'm showing authentic documents, drafted by

25     the witness, which he has confirmed, and we are placing them into the

Page 5944

 1     context that has been discussed, about the implementation of plans and

 2     measures in the extraordinary circumstances that occurred.

 3             We consider that relevant because we have in front of us a

 4     witness who authored these documents.  We will attribute a certain

 5     importance to them from the point of view of the Defence, and you will do

 6     so from the viewpoint of the Trial Chamber.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, if it assists, we do not understand the

 8     relevance either.

 9             We do not dispute that with the war in Croatia which began around

10     this time, there were security concerns, particularly on the border

11     areas, as you've heard, in Banja Luka.

12             As far as we're concerned what the Prosecution is saying about

13     those period of months in 1991 and has adduced through this witness is

14     that there was build up to the split in the MUP.

15             So, for the rest of it, we take no point on this.  We don't

16     object to the documents, but we don't see the relevance either.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I think that puts very well the concerns that I

18     have too.  We know that the MUP was split up.  We could see it coming.

19     We've been hearing evidence from this witness already on the fact that

20     this is what was -- was coming.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm laying a

22     foundation for the questions about the division of the MUP.  And the

23     relevance of this document lies more in the context of what we were

24     speaking about, the conduct of the MUP in extraordinary situations.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 5945

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And all that is to be seen in the

 2     paragraph -- in the context of paragraph 76.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4                           [Defence counsel confer]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Cvijetic, reluctantly, and a divided Chamber

 6     agrees that the documents may be admitted, but we -- this context which

 7     you have represented, the -- exists for the relevance of these documents,

 8     we will expect you to show.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, the document will become

10     Exhibit 1D179.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can assist you

12     and, thus, also confirm that you took a correct decision.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please repeat the latter part of

14     his sentence.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Cvijetic, the interpreter needs you to repeat

17     the latter part of your sentence.

18             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] So I just wanted to show once more

19     that you took the correct decision.  What we have just tendered, I

20     connect with paragraph 6 of the pre-trial brief of the OTP.

21             So can you check it.  76.

22        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, let me ask you generally, because there are -- some

23     documents have already been tendered concerning this, whether you had

24     information that in the Herzegovina the Croatian Community of

25     Herceg-Bosna had been established.  How did you come by this information,

Page 5946

 1     if you did?

 2        A.   I cannot reply to this question because I really don't remember

 3     when the organisation of Herceg-Bosna was established.  But we did have

 4     some security information, some intelligence that in Western Herzegovina,

 5     there were some armed and masked persons, that they been observed wearing

 6     uniforms from the neighbouring Croatia.

 7             The Presidency was informed of that, and it decided that

 8     Mr. Ejub Ganic as the coordinator of the Crisis Staff, visit some

 9     municipalities in the west of Herzegovina and report to the Presidency

10     about his findings.

11        Q.   Thank you.  I will not show you any documents.  I will merely put

12     to you that we have tendered documents about the official establishment

13     of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, that it was on the 18th of

14     November.  But my question to you is the following.  Do you allow for the

15     possibility that it was actually in fact established immediately after

16     the multi-party elections in 1991?  Do you have information from that

17     period?

18        A.   I frankly cannot remember, but I know that the area of

19     Western Herzegovina was, as it were, separate or functioned independently

20     from the decisions made by the cabinet of Bosnia-Herzegovina, at least in

21     some municipalities.

22        Q.   All right.  Then I will show you one document with regard to

23     this, and that's 1D144.

24             It's number 17 in your binder, sir.

25             Mr. Zepinic, let me point you to the letterhead where it says

Page 5947

 1     Croatian Defence Council and the date is the 1st of June 1990.

 2             Did you have information about the establishing of armed units of

 3     the Croatian Community, under this name, Croatian Defence Council?

 4        A.   No, we didn't have such information.

 5        Q.   Did you ever find out subsequently that there was a Croatian

 6     Defence Council?

 7        A.   I would say that, in early 1992, we learned about this.  Because

 8     Mr. Ganic, who was a member of the Presidency at a session of that

 9     Presidency, reported about that, because he had gone there as the

10     coordinator of the Crisis Staff.  He said that our information was false

11     and that we had him go there for no reason.

12        Q.   Do you think that he was being sincere?

13        A.   Well, if you look it up, you will find what I put to him.

14     Respectlessly I said to him that he should have taken a pair of glasses

15     with him when he went there.

16        Q.   All right.  Let us take a look at the following document.

17             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour, why should we

18     take a look at the following document which he hasn't seen and which he

19     knows nothing about.  Sorry.  But, Your Honours, I'm concerned now about

20     timing as well.

21             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I don't know which document

22     Ms. Korner is referring to.  It was interpreted to me, Why should we look

23     at the following document, and I haven't even shown the document yet.

24             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I thought we were -- I'm

25     that's my fault.  I thought we were referring to the document on the

Page 5948

 1     screen undated, from somebody called -- or unsigned, undated.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We have finished with this

 3     document, and the document is dated only at -- to see the date you have

 4     to scroll down.  Or up.

 5             Let's see the upper part, which probably bears the date.  The

 6     original.  Here it is.

 7             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I think, Your Honours, we

 8     went through this last time.  I think this document has apparently

 9     already been exhibited.  That's why I haven't got in my bundle either.

10     Anyhow, I don't want to take up more time, so if we're moving, we're

11     moving on.

12             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well.  Can we now take a look

13     at the next document, 1D030528.

14        Q.   This is your tab 18, Mr. Zepinic.

15             Mr. Zepinic, we see the date, 16 January 1992.  It is a

16     memorandum of the army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina from a

17     period when the Yugoslav People's Army still existed, at least

18     officially, formally.

19             Do you have knowledge as to when the armed forces of the BH were

20     formed or perhaps paramilitaries such as the Patriotic League and the

21     Green Berets?

22        A.   I didn't see this at the time.  Of course if I had seen the

23     document contemporaneously or we would taken the necessary legal steps, I

24     don't have information that the army of the Republic of

25     Bosnia-Herzegovina was established in January 1992.

Page 5949

 1             This is, I would say, very ...

 2        Q.   I'm sorry, you will have to repeat, but slowly.

 3        A.   This is the first time I see this document.  If anyone from our

 4     service had that document and made it available to the ministry, I

 5     guarantee to you that the ministry would have taken the necessary legal

 6     steps against everything that is suggested in the document, which was

 7     contrary to the law prevailing in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 8             As for the establishment of the army of the Republic of Bosnia

 9     and Herzegovina, I don't know when it was established.  I only know that

10     formally it was set up after the war broke out.

11             If you want a comment from me, I find it very odd that, on this

12     memorandum we see this coat of arms with shields.  At that time the coat

13     of arms with lilies was still in place, was still used.  And I don't

14     think the whole town of Stolac could provide a whole brigade, let alone

15     made up only of Muslims.

16             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would like this only MFI'd.  I

17     don't think the requirements are met for admission through this witness.

18     Because --

19             JUDGE HALL:  Not even for it to be MFI'd.  let me hear Ms.

20     Korner.

21             MS. KORNER:  I'm objecting to this document altogether, and I

22     would like to know, please, exactly where it comes from.  And I don't

23     want a response such as, "We think from the centre for cooperation with

24     The Hague."  I want exact chapter and verse, please.  And I, at the

25     moment, certainly object to its admission.

Page 5950

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you know that we

 2     proposed 1500 documents.  I don't know the exact provenance of this one,

 3     but we will run checks and respond to the Prosecutor.

 4             We found a memorandum with such stamps from dates earlier than

 5     this one, so it -- it -- that is not in question.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  So far as this document goes, you can't go any

 7     further, so we drop this and you move on.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If that is your decision, we shall

 9     move on.

10        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, let's try to clear up something about the previous

11     document.

12             Do you know the names of the people who signed it?

13        A.   No.  But I'm looking at it.  The stamp is Stolac, and in the

14     header it says Mostar.

15             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will accept the decision of the

16     Trial Chamber to link this up with other documents on the subject, and

17     then we'll see later.

18             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] No, no, Your Honour.  To

19     be quite clear, I would like an answer, not in the near future, but at

20     the latest tomorrow, as to where this document actually comes from.  And

21     any other documents that you say go with it.

22                           [Defence counsel confer]

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at the next break,

24     we will have it ready.

25             May I move on?

Page 5951

 1             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.

 2             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Zepinic, I'd like to ask you this.  Did you, at the Ministry

 4     of the Interior, have any information that the Party of Democratic Action

 5     was sending to Croatia men who were - how shall I put it? - interested in

 6     getting training for special forces.

 7             You can start now.

 8        A.   Yes, we had information that people from Bosnia and Herzegovina

 9     were applying at an open competition at the Ministry of the Interior of

10     Croatia for training slots in a newly opened training centre for MUP

11     personnel, and we did not have the authority to prevent them from going.

12     How exactly it was organised, whether it was through the SDA or not, I

13     don't know.  I know that once, Mr. Zupljanin informed me that we had

14     stopped two buses in the territory of Krajina, and one of the people on

15     the buses was the Deputy Chief of department in the MUP, and the

16     applicants, the trainees, were from Western Herzegovina.  They were going

17     for training in Croatia.  But I have to say again, we had no legal

18     authority to prevent them from going.  We had several cases when we

19     intervened because some of those men, coming back after the training,

20     wanted jobs in our ministry, but we had to intervene and prevent it,

21     because this training they had gone through in Croatia, that did not go

22     through any cooperation between the MUP of Croatia and -- and our MUP.

23     It had nothing to do with us.

24        Q.   You've already anticipated my next question, whether the ministry

25     was backing this.  And the answer is?

Page 5952

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   Now, do you think it's legal for a national party to send

 3     candidates for such training?

 4        A.   I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I have to say about

 5     national or non-national.

 6        Q.   Did you have information that the SDA is also organising transit

 7     for candidates from Sandzak to -- to Croatia?  From Sandzak and Kosovo to

 8     Croatia.

 9             Could you please repeat your answer.

10        A.   Yes, we had such information, because after the provincial MUP of

11     Kosovo was disbanded, most of their personnel found employment in the MUP

12     of Croatia.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             Mr. Zepinic, in these introductory documents, I wanted to give

15     some background and recreate that atmosphere which was leading up to the

16     crisis.  How did you get information that the outcome of the Lisbon

17     negotiations between Alija Izetbegovic and Dr. Karadzic was leading to

18     the -- to an ethnic division of Bosnia and Herzegovina and also a

19     division in the Ministry of the Interior?

20             Wait a second before you answer.

21        A.   As for the nature of the political negotiations in Lisbon that

22     were taking place under the aegis of Mr. Cutileiro, I don't know.  But

23     what was interesting for me was to know that the two political leaders in

24     the presence of international representatives suggested as a solution the

25     creation of ministries of -- mono-ethnic Ministries of the Interior and a

Page 5953

 1     council consisting of nine members, including three members from each

 2     ethnic community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to coordinate those national

 3     ministries of the interior.

 4        Q.   In such an atmosphere, I have the impression that you convened

 5     that meeting with your colleagues around the 1st of April, and that you

 6     even said so, for the record, one of these days, if, for no other purpose

 7     than to say good-bye to each other, to say farewell?

 8        A.   No, I'm afraid you're a little off on your time.

 9             That happened in the beginning of January in 1992, and my last,

10     meeting with my associates was on the 3rd of April, when the situation

11     was pretty clear, and it was quite obvious that my struggle against

12     nationalism in Bosnia-Herzegovina and among my colleagues was lost.  I

13     told my colleagues that it was the last collegium meeting I'm convening,

14     and I asked them not to play any role that would contribute to the

15     conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, not to play any personal role in

16     that, and especially not to contribute between any conflict between

17     members of the Ministry of the Interior on ethnic grounds.  It was a very

18     emotional meeting, my last with my colleagues, and I'm very sorry to have

19     been proven right.  It was followed by raging conflict in Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina, things I don't need to repeat in this courtroom.

21                           [Defence counsel confer]

22             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   When you said I was a bit off on the time, I actually meant that

24     in January, at least you think in January, you had information about the

25     outcome of the negotiations.

Page 5954

 1        A.   No I don't think.  I know that it was in the beginning of

 2     January.

 3                           [Defence counsel confer]

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   You mean the negotiations in Lisbon, with Mr. Cutileiro?

 6             And your answer hasn't been recorded again.  Could you please

 7     repeat it.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   I will now venture a motivation that drove you at that meeting.

10             You were saying something like, If we really have to split, then

11     let us split as -- as colleagues.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   A few days later, there was a meeting on the premises of the

14     assembly, at the office of Mr. Krajisnik [realtime transcript read in

15     error "Karadzic"].  You've mentioned this meeting before.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   The assembly [as interpreted] of Mr. Krajisnik, not Karadzic.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Can we agree about the date, the 4th of April, 1992?

20        A.   Yes.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I know it's Monday, and I believe

22     everybody is tired, but it is the office of Mr. Krajisnik.  Not the

23     assembly of Karadzic, or assembly of Krajisnik or Karadzic, so, thank

24     you.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

Page 5955

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Now, it is a unit of the Special Police that provides security

 3     and guards the ministry, the post office, all government buildings, as

 4     well as the assembly; correct?

 5        A.   We would not have enough members of the Special Police to do all

 6     that.

 7        Q.   What about the assembly and the Presidency and the most important

 8     institutions?

 9        A.   Yes, there were members of the special unit.  But not only them,

10     they were not the only ones who exclusively provided security.

11        Q.   Bringing weapons into such buildings was forbidden.

12        A.   For whom?  You mean authorised -- unauthorized persons?  Weapons

13     could be brought in -- into the buildings only by those who were guarding

14     inside or outside, who were on duty.

15        Q.   The debate was rather heated at that meeting, and we had your

16     account of it.  It was offered to you that you could become a member of

17     the ministry, and that was the day you resigned; correct?

18        A.   I think Mr. Zecevic wanted to tell you something.

19             No, nobody offered me anything, and, of course, if they did, I

20     would have refused.

21        Q.   That's the day you signed your letter of resignation.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Isn't it a bit contradictory, Mr. Zepinic, that at a meeting like

24     that, a meeting of that level, you should understand that kind of

25     rhetoric as a serious threat with murder?

Page 5956

 1        A.   You mean what Mr. Stanisic said?

 2        Q.   I'll ask you a specific question.  I'll give you his version of

 3     the event.

 4             Did members of the special unit, Repija and Maric, come in to

 5     that room as your escorts or whatever?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   When did they come in?

 8        A.   Later, after I came into the room where Mr. Krajisnik and the

 9     other SDS members were including Mr. Stanisic.  Whether he meant it

10     seriously when he said that he would kill me, I said, in any case, Should

11     I go to the basement if that is going to happen?  Rather than staying

12     here.  Now whether he was serious or not, that's not my job to interpret.

13        Q.   But you remember talking about Repija, the special policeman, he

14     was quite devoted to you, and he ripped his official ID card, and he told

15     you that you are the only one who could command him.

16        A.   Yes, I remember.

17        Q.   All right.  And do you know that Mr. Repija, the next day,

18     accepted to be placed under the command of Mr. Karisik, and he did go to

19     Vrace?

20        A.   I don't know about that.  But he visited me in jail at Jahorina

21     together with Dusko Jevic and another person.  Now what the purpose of

22     that visit was, I don't know.

23        Q.   Just briefly, did he tell you that he had gone into Vrace?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   Did you have information that, as he was entering Vrace, he was

Page 5957

 1     wounded?

 2        A.   I don't know about him being wounded.  I know that Dusko Jevic

 3     was wounded.

 4        Q.   Did you have information that, as they were entering Vrace, the

 5     Special Police unit was shot at from surrounding buildings by the

 6     Green Berets and two of them were killed?

 7        A.   I don't know, Mr. Cvijetic.  I'm telling you, because I wasn't

 8     there.

 9        Q.   I understood you only heard about it.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And I have only one more issue to clear up about the way you left

12     Republika Srpska.

13             Sorry, just before one question before that.

14             Do you have information that the same evening, before Vrace, on

15     the 4th, after that meeting, that the Green Berets occupied several

16     public security stations in Sarajevo and in the Novo Sarajevo SJB they

17     killed one Serb policeman?

18        A.   Mr. Petrovic.

19        Q.   Yes, Petrovic.  Thank you.

20             Last Friday, on page 5841 of the transcript, when you were told

21     that the vice premier in November, Mr. Trbojevic, claimed that you had

22     been working in military security from September 1992, you said that was

23     not true, and you did not know where Trbojevic got that information.  Do

24     you remember saying that?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 5958

 1        Q.   Just repeat your previous answer.  Do you remember this?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Then you said you spent some time in Kula prison, after which you

 4     were transferred to a military jail in Lukavica, where from you escaped

 5     in November 1992; is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   I hope this is going to be my last question.

 8             Isn't it true that you really worked at the command of the

 9     Romanija Infantry Corps and shared an office with one Milidrag [phoen]

10     and Colonel Lugonja, security officers of the Army of the Republika

11     Srpska?

12        A.   Now I really have to take a while to answer this question because

13     you are really provocative.

14        Q.   No, please answer.  This is not a question that one can answer

15     with a yes or no.

16        A.   Mr. Cvijetic, in the military -- please, I listened to you, and I

17     didn't interrupt.  Now please let me answer.

18        Q.   You don't know the rules of cross-examination.

19        A.   I know the rules of risking my own life, Mr. Cvijetic.

20             JUDGE HALL:  First of all, the interpreter has to be able to

21     record the question and the answer.  Secondly, as a matter of courtesy,

22     Mr. Cvijetic, having asked the question, please allow the witness to

23     answer.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was transferred, the

25     investigation was led by Mr. Milidrag and by Captain Bukva.  And his last

Page 5959

 1     name is very telling because his character is exactly like his name.

 2             After a few days, Colonel Marko Lugonja arrived.  Whether on

 3     purpose or by chance, I was in a room and on the very cot where

 4     Alija Izetbegovic when he was taken there from the airport.

 5             On one occasion Mr. Lugonja asked me in accordance with a

 6     dispatch from the minister of People's Defence, my friend

 7     General Bulatovic and also General Panic, which they sent to

 8     General Mladic, that, at Grbavica a Muslim be found who was one of the

 9     chiefs of department in the Ministry of the Interior of Yugoslavia.

10     Nobody dared go Grabovica to find him, so Mr. Lugonja asked me to do the

11     job.  They gave me a uniform with some rank and insignia, I don't know

12     whether they were those of Lieutenant Colonel.  Zoran Kos drove because

13     was the prison warden.  We went to Grabovica, we picked that up that man,

14     and I fulfilled my part of the agreement.  Kos and I sat in the front,

15     and that man and his wife were sitting in the rear.

16             I was recognised or, rather, we were recognised, and people were

17     asking questions, but anyway we transferred the man to Han Pijesak and

18     handed him over to units that were supposed to take him to Belgrade.  And

19     I returned to jail, Mr. Cvijetic.

20        Q.   I listened carefully to your answer.  I'll now ask my final

21     question, and we will be tendering more evidence.

22             Let me ask you:  Is it true that the very same officer,

23     Mr. Lugonja gave you a travel document to go to Nis to the military

24     hospital at that time to have your kidneys examined, but you never

25     returned from there, but instead left for Australia.  Can you provide

Page 5960

 1     with us with a yes or no answer?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Your Honours.  No further questions.

 4             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, with some hesitation I return to

 5     the question of putting your case.  Mr. Cvijetic said a few moments ago,

 6     I will now put to you what Mr. Stanisic says happened, that nothing was

 7     put.

 8             So I am taking it that it is accepted that during the course of

 9     the resignation by Dr. Zepinic, Stanisic arrived, was there, waved a gun

10     and threatened to kill him.  Now, I don't know whether Your Honours think

11     is that is important enough to put a case, if Stanisic's case is

12     different.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, maybe if -- if the ruling would be

14     that we need to ask additional questions, or maybe my learned friend will

15     re-direct the witness, maybe the witness should be excused while we are

16     discussing this issue.

17             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I'm not seeking to re-direct the

18     witness.  I am saying that, as it has not been challenged, it has not

19     been suggested that Mr. Zepinic is wrong or lying about that, it is

20     accepted by Mico Stanisic that that is what happened.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, the witness answered that, according

22     to his answer today, nobody was allowed to carry a gun in the -- in the

23     -- in the building of the Presidency, except if he was on duty outside or

24     inside, guarding it.

25             Therefore, the part of his statement before that anybody,

Page 5961

 1     including Mico Stanisic, was waving gun at him obviously is contradicted

 2     with his answer today.

 3             So, therefore, I -- I mean, I see Ms. Korner laughing, but I

 4     don't -- I don't think that is appropriate at all.

 5             I believe the witness gave that answer.  The second thing he

 6     said, I'm not sure if he meant seriously that he wanted to kill me, or if

 7     it was just a figure of speech.  I don't think that it deserves any

 8     further cross-examination or putting of the case from the Defence.  Or

 9     maybe I am wrong.

10             But anyhow, as I have stated this before the witness now, we

11     cannot -- we cannot explore this situation anymore with the witness.

12             Thank you.

13             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, I'm perfectly happy for the

14     witness to be asked to leave court while we explore this with a little

15     more depth.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, but ...

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE HALL:  Are you prepared to begin your re-examination,

19     Ms. Korner?

20             MS. KORNER:  Well, I'm asking for a ruling.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, unless we are hopelessly lost, it seems

22     to us that what are you asking the Chamber to do would be, at best,

23     premature.  The evidence was led -- this bit of evidence and it is a

24     replication of the discussion we had today.  You led the evidence from

25     the witness; the witness gave you answers.  The other side chose not go

Page 5962

 1     down that road.  It means that at the end -- when it comes time to make

 2     your submissions as to what findings of fact the Chamber should make, you

 3     will no doubt be able to powerfully put to the Chamber what you have just

 4     suggested.  But I don't see that the Chamber can make any ruling at this

 5     stage, because it would involve the Chamber making findings before the

 6     evidence is closed.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, that is simply not right.  Your Honour,

 8     may I suggest that Your Honours read the decision.  Your Honours, it is

 9     it absolutely standard that a witness -- if it is suggested that a

10     witness is mistaken or lying, then that must be put to the witness.  It

11     is not sufficient for the Defence to sit there and wait and do nothing.

12             It is an obligation under the Rules.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  You draw the procedural advantage from that.

14     That's it.

15             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  What do you mean the

16     procedural advantage?

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  You draw the procedural advantage that you gain

18     from the Defence not having raised the issue during -- during its

19     cross-examination.

20             MS. KORNER:  But Your Honour, I don't.  I draw no procedural

21     advantage from this.  With the greatest of respect, Your Honour, we

22     cannot ignore the Rules or, rather, the authority which is absolutely

23     clear.  I'm having some difficulty in explaining, obviously, to you what

24     seems to me absolutely crystal clear, that where there is a dispute about

25     what a witness has said on something which Your Honours may consider

Page 5963

 1     really quite important, then it has to be put to the witness.  Part of it

 2     is how the witness deals with it.

 3             Your Honours, I'm sorry, I -- this is the second time today, but

 4     it is absolutely clear from the authority, based on the Rules in this

 5     Tribunal.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I'm sorry, is the translation over?

 7             The duty of the Defence during cross-examination obviously is to

 8     raise doubts about the evidence that was elicited from the Prosecution

 9     during the examination-in-chief of the witnesses.  That goes without

10     saying.

11             Now, if you're asking the Chamber to compel the Defence to put

12     questions to the witness which may be incriminating for the -- for the

13     accused, I think that the standard rule would be that we cannot compel

14     the Defence to elicit evidence that would be incriminating.  And it would

15     be wrong to do so.  Because, Ms. Korner, suppose -- if we go back to the

16     example that we had earlier this day, suppose we were to have the Defence

17     accept the evidence offered by this witness that it was, indeed,

18     Mr. Zupljanin who spoke on that intercept, then if it would then turn out

19     that during that intercept something was said which would clearly be

20     incriminating for Mr. Zupljanin; or, if not in this intercept, then the

21     next intercepts or the next intercepts, at some point, something was said

22     that clearly incriminated Mr. Zupljanin.  In any one of those cases, I

23     think the Defence would be entitled to say, This is not our client, or

24     simply, We refrain from taking any position on it.

25             And I don't see how the Chamber can compel the Defence to take a

Page 5964

 1     position on it.  It's part of the game that they have the right to remain

 2     silent.

 3             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry, "a game."  This is simply not a game.

 4     This is not -- the right to remain silent is not an absolute one.

 5             Your Honours, may I respectfully suggest, I did sent a copy of

 6     the decision to your legal officer before the break, and invited him to

 7     give you a copy to read it.  The right to silence is not an absolute one.

 8     There is a right -- would Your Honour let me finish now, please.  There

 9     is an absolute obligation for a number of very good reasons why if an

10     important piece of evidence is disputed by the Defence, then the Defence

11     are required to put to the witness that he is wrong.  I know that in

12     civil law the idea that a witness -- it should be put to a witness that

13     he is lying is anathema.  It cannot be the same in Judge Hall's case.

14     But it is a requirement, a requirement that, if it is not -- what the

15     witness says is it not accepted, then the witness must be given the

16     opportunity to deal with it.

17             Your Honour, it is set out -- the reasons for it are set out very

18     clearly in the decision.  And I don't think, obviously, Your Honours have

19     had an opportunity to read it.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner --

21             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Just briefly, I think this is where my comment a

22     while ago about the procedural advantage that you gain becomes relevant.

23     Because if you are holding that Mr. Stanisic, at this meeting in

24     Mr. Krajisnik's office, indeed, did wave a gun at the witness, and the

25     Defence refuses to approach that issue, then what is left behind is the

Page 5965

 1     witness's evidence, statement.

 2             He said at one point that there was a gun involved, and at

 3     another point, he said that no guns were allowed into the building.

 4     That's the evidence we have, and we will give the weight to it that we

 5     find appropriate at the time.

 6             But to ask us now to rule on it, I think is --

 7             MS. KORNER:  But Your Honour, that is -- I'm sorry to tell that

 8     you is the Rule.  That is -- that was established, because this has

 9     arisen four years ago, longer than that, eight years ago, virtually.  I

10     think it is 2002, the decision.

11             Your Honours, the point is this.  During the Defence case, the --

12     the defendant -- the accused Stanisic goes in the witness box and says

13     not true, never threatened him with a gun.  Wholly and utterly untrue.

14     And what's more, I can call all this evidence to support that.  If that

15     is it right, this must put be put to Dr. Zepinic now so that he can deal

16     with it.  And you can see his reaction.  That's the whole point.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, please may I -- oh, I'm so sorry, I

19     forgot this.  Thank you very much.

20             Rule 90(H)(ii):

21             "In the cross-examination of a witness who is able to give

22     evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examining party, counsel

23     shall put to that witness the nature of the case of the party for whom

24     that counsel appears which is in contradiction of the evidence given by

25     the witness."

Page 5966

 1             JUDGE HALL:  You have raised this question, Ms. Korner, in

 2     respect of two specific items.  One is this purported identification of

 3     Stanisic on the intercept, and the other one is -- sorry, Zupljanin on

 4     the intercept.  Zupljanin on the intercept.  And this incident with

 5     Stanisic waving a gun.

 6             The -- these would be but two items of a number of items on which

 7     the Prosecution is relying.  If the Chamber is required to compel, as I

 8     understand your argument to be, the Defence to address these items

 9     because, as you put it, these are -- very important, probably pivotal -

10     pivotal is probably putting it too wide - to the Prosecution's case, how

11     is the exercise of identifying everything that would fall in this

12     category arrived at?

13             You obviously have identified these two items as one -- ones that

14     you would have excepted.  And if I may say so, for myself, I, too, would

15     have expected the -- the Defence in their opportunity to cross-examine

16     the witness to have addressed.  But I -- the application of the Rule that

17     -- that you cite, I am wholly unable to appreciate, Ms. Korner, how that

18     translates into putting the Chamber where it -- even if at agrees in

19     respect of these two items you have identified or any other item which

20     the -- in which it reasonably thought the Defence would have addressed

21     and they would have failed to do so, to require them before they close

22     their cross-examination to challenge the witnesses on these two items.

23             I remain -- it seems to me that if, notwithstanding the clear

24     obligation that the Defence has in the course of cross-examination to put

25     case, if it chooses to leave something there, then to borrow

Page 5967

 1     Judge Harhoff's phrase, the procedural advantage seems to be clearly in

 2     favour of the Prosecution.

 3             MS. KORNER:  But, Your Honour, this is the Rule.  I'm asking for

 4     application of the rule, if not, I am entitled to the assume that those

 5     aspects of the case which I have identified as important and with which

 6     Your Honours agree, not having been challenged are accepted by the

 7     Defence.  If they are not accepted by the Defence then the obligation is

 8     to put it.

 9             And that is the -- you're absolutely right.  Your Honours can't

10     force the Defence to put a case.  But then when I say that I'm taking it

11     those matters are accepted as accurate and truthful and that is it, the

12     Defence, if under no -- even under the rules are obliged to do that, and

13     I'm asking for application of the Rules, and otherwise we're entitled to

14     assume that there will not be any evidence called to contradict this.

15             JUDGE HALL:  I earlier today used the word "consequences" with

16     which you took some issue.  But that is exactly what the result that I

17     had in mind.  If the -- if the Defence chooses to take a certain course,

18     then the arguments which you are making now would -- I shouldn't

19     anticipate what ruling the Chamber would make, of course, but it would

20     seem to be that the Defence would have great difficulty answering

21     those --

22             MS. KORNER:  But what is Your Honour -- I'm sorry, but with the

23     greatest respect, supposing Stanisic goes into the witness box and says,

24     Uh-uh, It's completely untrue what Dr. Zepinic said.  I didn't have a

25     gun.  You're not allowed to take a gun in there.  Threatening him with

Page 5968

 1     death, certainly not, I wouldn't do such a thing.

 2             How is Your Honour going to treat that evidence?  Your Honours.

 3     When it's never been put to Dr. Zepinic that is he lying.  Which is what

 4     the effect of it would be?  How is that evidence going to be treated?

 5     Are you going ignore it?

 6             I heard what Your Honour said, but I'm asking for the application

 7     of the Rule.

 8             If Your Honours say that the Rule 90(H)(ii) has no application in

 9     this trial, well, then we will be -- we'll see where we go.

10             JUDGE HALL:  It's about ten -- we'll take the break now and

11     return in -- we rising at 5.30, so we will resume in about a half-hour.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13                           --- Recess taken at 3.53 p.m.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15                           --- On resuming at 4.30 p.m.

16             JUDGE HALL:  During the break, we have taken the opportunity to

17     refamiliarize ourselves with the reasoning of the Trial Chamber in the

18     Brdjanin decision to which counsel for the Prosecution helpfully drew our

19     attention, and we respectively adopt in its entirety the reasoning as

20     stated in that case, and as applied to the instant case, we repeat the

21     decision that we gave earlier, and are of the view that there is -- that

22     this -- the two issues to which Ms. Korner has drawn our attention do not

23     require the Chamber to make any ruling as to how the Defence should

24     approach those issues.

25             Thank you.

Page 5969

 1             MS. KORNER:  Well, then, Your Honours may I -- because this arose

 2     both in the Boskoski case, I was informed over the adjournment and also

 3     the Vukovar case, the name of the accused I have not forgotten, and there

 4     Judge Parker presided in both cases when the issue arose, and it was made

 5     clear that if the Defence subsequently called evidence which contradicted

 6     what the witness had said but which had never been put to him, that

 7     effectively, and I'm summarising, no weight would be attached to that

 8     evidence.

 9             Are you Your Honours to prepared to say that is what you will be

10     doing?

11             JUDGE HALL:  It would be premature for us to say that.  But from

12     everything that we would have said, Ms. Korner, I think that the -- it

13     would be remarkable if when called upon, and I emphasis it is premature,

14     it would be remarkable, if when called upon, this Chamber were to take a

15     different course.

16             MS. KORNER:  Thank you.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, we are talking now about the

18     application of the Rules, I must -- I must raise your attention to two

19     aspects of the -- of the decision of the Trial Chamber in Brdjanin.  And

20     that is that the Trial Chamber found that certain flexibility in the

21     circumstances of trial an allowed.  That is one thing.  And the second is

22     the dissenting upon of O-Gon Kwon -- it's in Popovic, I'm sorry, it's in

23     Popovic, I'm terribly sorry.  The decision in Popovic.  And Judge Kwon in

24     his dissenting opinion stressed that the rule cannot be interpreted to

25     mean that where the cross-examining party fails to put to the witness the

Page 5970

 1     nature of its case, it would be precluded from adducing contradictory

 2     evidence later.  Where the aim of the rule to be such, it should have

 3     said so explicitly.  And it doesn't.  That's true.

 4             I just wanted to raise the attention of the Trial Chamber to

 5     that.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  In any event, we will dispose of this matter.

 7             Ms. Korner, your re-examination of the witness in the 55 minutes

 8     remaining.

 9             MS. KORNER:  You can rest assured, Your Honour, I will not be

10     taking 55 minutes.  In fact I have only got one matter I want to deal

11     with.

12             I suppose I better put my earphones on.

13                           Re-examination by Ms. Korner:

14        Q.   You were asked by counsel for Zupljanin, Dr. Zepinic, a number of

15     questions about a man called Veljko Milinkovic.  It is right, isn't it,

16     from what you know of him, that his group was called the Wolves of

17     Vucjak?

18             You were asked -- do you want me to repeat the question?  Okay.

19     You were asked a number of questions about a man called

20     Veljko Milinkovic.  Were you aware that the group that he headed was

21     called the Wolves of Vucjak?

22        A.   I didn't know of that name, but I was well-informed about all the

23     criminal activities of that gentleman and his group in the Banja Luka

24     area.

25        Q.   Yes.  In that case, were you aware that he took part in the

Page 5971

 1     takeover of the Kozara transmitter in August 1991?

 2        A.   I can't remember that specifically, but I know that the

 3     information indicated that that group stopped vehicles, confiscated

 4     goods, buses, evacuated passengers from buses.  So it was a whole panoply

 5     of criminal activities.  But as for the specific question that you're

 6     asking, I really can't remember that.

 7        Q.   Do you remember the takeover of the Kozara transmitter in

 8     August of 1991?

 9        A.   No, unfortunately, not.

10        Q.   The aim being to prevent people receiving programmes in that

11     area, which included --

12             MR. KRGOVIC:  Asked and answered, Your Honour.

13             MS. KORNER:  I'm seeing whether I can jog his memory,

14     Your Honour, a bit about it.

15        Q.   The aim being to prevent people in the area of that transmitter,

16     which included Banja Luka, from receiving programmes from Sarajevo.

17             Does that help at all?

18        A.   Again, I cannot answer that question.  But I know that there were

19     efforts to transmit or hinder broadcast of a programme which was not, if

20     I may put it that way, in accordance with the ethnic composition of the

21     population.  I know that there were some efforts in certain areas and I

22     suppose that there were efforts of that kind in that area as well.

23        Q.   And just because there was a slight confusion as to what we were

24     talking about.  But Veljko Milinkovic came from the municipality of

25     Prnjavor and was a Bosnian Serb, that's right, isn't, he wasn't a Serb

Page 5972

 1     Serb.

 2        A.   He is from that area.  As for his ethnic background, I don't

 3     know.  But based on the information we heard here, it seems that he is an

 4     ethnic Serb.

 5        Q.   And whatever the suggestion that we looked at in that report of

 6     December 1991, he was not in fact ever prosecuted, was he?

 7             MR. KRGOVIC:  Objection.  It is leading, Your Honour.  Just ask

 8     question.  Because in previous -- in previous question the witness

 9     answered that he is not aware what has happened later.  I mean, during my

10     cross-examination.

11             MS. KORNER:

12        Q.   Before -- you were still the deputy minister for police until the

13     4th of April?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Did you ever hear any report from Mr. Zupljanin or anybody else

16     that Mr. Milinkovic - hardly call him Mr. - that Veljko Milinkovic had

17     been prosecuted and imprisoned?

18        A.   I remember that Mr. Zupljanin informed me about his arrest and

19     placing into custody.  According to the then law of criminal procedure,

20     somebody could be kept in pre-trial detention for three days, following

21     which public prosecutor should have filed a criminal complaint.

22             I was informed that the public prosecutor did not accept the

23     commutation that was sent by the CSB Banja Luka to the prosecutor's

24     office in order to initiate the criminal proceedings.

25        Q.   Were you aware that he and his group in fact were taken into the

Page 5973

 1     1st Krajina Corps once the VRS had been formed and the 1st Krajina Corps

 2     established?

 3        A.   I don't know about that, because I was in detention at that time.

 4        Q.   And so are you able to help us about any recommendation that was

 5     made after his death for a posthumous award and a ceremony in 1996 where

 6     he was praised by Krajisnik as a hero of the Serbian uprising.

 7             Did you know anything about that?

 8        A.   I don't know specifically about that, but I can tell you that the

 9     tragedy of my country was that we -- at either side, Bosnian Muslim,

10     Croatian, or Serbian rewarded criminals for the bad deeds that they had

11     perpetrated.

12        Q.   Yes, and I see as always you would like to make it clear that it

13     wasn't just the Serbs, it was everybody else as well.  That's the

14     position, is it, Dr. Zepinic?

15        A.   Yes.  And following, what, has been it 17 or 18 years, I still

16     condemn national parties for everything that happened in my country.

17     Regardless of the fact that those were political parties in power,

18     regardless of the fact whether international community recognised them or

19     not, the rule of the national parties in my country directly led to war

20     conflict in my country.  I need to be quite specific in my position.

21        Q.   Yes, I have no further questions in re-examination.  Thank you.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE HALL:  Dr. Zepinic, we thank you for your assistance before

24     the Tribunal.  Your testimony is now at an end, and you are released.

25     And we wish you a safe journey back to your home.

Page 5974

 1             Thank you, sir.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, can I address to the Court please,

 3     shortly.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Please proceed.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  First of all, I would like to thank you

 6     for giving me opportunity on both sides to say very shortly about what's

 7     happened in my former country.

 8             [Interpretation] You would do me a great pleasure if this

 9     Tribunal as an international body via international institutions, first

10     and foremost, UN and EU would assist in recovery of my country and its

11     people.  My former country and its peoples did not in any way deserve the

12     tragedy that, unfortunately, they had suffered.  Every 18th resident of

13     my country was killed.  40 per cent of the population was expelled from

14     their hearths.  750.000 persons according to the World Health

15     Organisation will require professional assistance due to post-traumatic

16     stress disorder.  Therefore, I kindly ask you, and I believe this

17     Tribunal to be a serious international organisation, to help bring a

18     smile back onto the faces of children in my country.

19             Thank you.

20                           [The witness withdrew]

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE HALL:  We're about to take the adjournment to 2.15 tomorrow

23     afternoon in this courtroom.  But reluctantly I do ask whether there are

24     any procedural issues which the Chamber should address.

25             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, no.  I -- I'm still -- I have to say

Page 5975

 1     for my part I'm not clear on what's going to happen in future when we get

 2     to matters which are disputed and which are of importance.  But we'll

 3     just have to wait and see what happens.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated].

 5             Sorry, we are on track with the videolink witnesses for tomorrow?

 6             MS. KORNER:  Yes, as far as I know.  There is no problem with any

 7     of the video witnesses.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

 9             And nothing from the other side?

10             Thank you.  Tomorrow afternoon.

11                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.37 p.m.,

12                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 2nd day of

13                           February, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.